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

Re: Comments on zeroconf draft

To: "Karen E. Nielsen (AH/TED)" <karen.e.nielsen@ericsson.com>, 'Pekka Savola' <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Subject: Re: Comments on zeroconf draft
From: Radhakrishnan Suryanarayanan <rkrishnan.s@samsung.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 15:05:18 +0530
Cc: juha.wiljakka@nokia.com, "'Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)'" <jonne.soininen@nokia.com>, V6OPS WG <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Organization: SAMSUNG India Software Operations
References: <C26BB8276599A44B85D52F9CE41035E1050B968B@esealnt944.al.sw.ericsson.se>
Reply-to: Radhakrishnan Suryanarayanan <rkrishnan.s@samsung.com>

Hi karen,
  I have some doubts. Can you clarify this point?
The quote from the zerconf draft :
"
   Tunnel state here is considered to be any parameter kept by the

   server per client and without which the server is unable to serve the

   client (receive packets from/send packets to).

"
Isnt the client's/end-node's v6address reachability using the v6-in-v4
tunnel itself a parameter maintained at the tunnel server? If so, then
doesnt that itself means a tunnel state?

References:
- RE: Comments on zeroconf draft
  - From: "Karen E. Nielsen (AH/TED)" <karen.e.nielsen@ericsson.com>

Prev by Date: RE: Comments on zeroconf draft
Next by Date: RE: Comments on zeroconf draft
Previous by thread: RE: Comments on zeroconf draft
Next by thread: RE: Comments on zeroconf draft
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread