[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: mech-v2-05pre

To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>, Vladislav Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
Subject: Re: mech-v2-05pre
From: Fred Templin <osprey67@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: Fred Templin <osprey67@yahoo.com>, "O.L.N.Rao" <olnrao@samsung.com>, Radhakrishnan Suryanarayanan <rkrishnan.s@samsung.com>, Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, Alex Conta <aconta@txc.com>
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408262115430.28365-100000@netcore.fi>

--- Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> wrote:

> Of course, if there's another spec down the road which modifies 
> proto-41 configured tunnels behaviour somehow so that other IP 
> protocols than just "6" are OK, that's fine as well.  The question is 
> just about whether unmodified configured tunnels could support 
> protocols other than "6", which doesn't seem to be the case..

As far as I can tell, no one is suggesting *support* for protocols
other than "6".

The suggestion is for the specification to declare as out-of-scope
the behavior for packets discovered to have version other than "6"
after the encapsulating IPv4 header is discarded.

Fred L. Templin
osprey67@yahoo.com

Follow-Ups:
- Re: mech-v2-05pre
  - From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>

References:
- Re: mech-v2-05pre
  - From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>

Prev by Date: Re: mech-v2-05pre
Next by Date: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-05.txt
Previous by thread: Re: mech-v2-05pre
Next by thread: Re: mech-v2-05pre
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread