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

Re: Unreachability detection at tunnels servers WAS: RE: Comments onzeroconf draft

To: "Karen E. Nielsen (AH/TED)" <karen.e.nielsen@ericsson.com>, 'Brian E Carpenter' <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Unreachability detection at tunnels servers WAS: RE: Comments onzeroconf draft
From: Radhakrishnan Suryanarayanan <rkrishnan.s@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:54:32 +0530
Cc: 'Pekka Savola' <pekkas@netcore.fi>, V6OPS WG <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, juha.wiljakka@nokia.com, 'Jeroen Massar' <jeroen@unfix.org>
Organization: SAMSUNG India Software Operations
References: <C26BB8276599A44B85D52F9CE41035E1050B96A4@esealnt944.al.sw.ericsson.se>
Reply-to: Radhakrishnan Suryanarayanan <rkrishnan.s@samsung.com>

Hi Karen,

> My new question is then  - is the proto-41 translation scheme the general
mech
> adopted for (and accepted for) this purpose by the WG ?
IMHO, the transition mechanisms should provide handling ICMPv4 errors and
their translation.
"Basic Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 Hosts and Routers"
<draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-06.txt> section 3.4 is doing it. Isnt this a good
indicator?

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

Prev by Date: RE: Unreachability detection at tunnels servers WAS: RE: Comments on zeroconf draft
Next by Date: RE: Unreachability detection at tunnels servers WAS: RE: Comments on zeroconf draft
Previous by thread: RE: Unreachability detection at tunnels servers WAS: RE: Comments on zeroconf draft
Next by thread: Re: Unreachability detection at tunnels servers WAS: RE: Comments on zeroconf draft
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread