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

Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-01.txt and draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-02.txt WGLC

To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-01.txt and draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-02.txt WGLC
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:20:53 -0700
Cc: haofeng Zhang <hfzhang.cn@gmail.com>, v6ops WG <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, Kurt Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, hiromi@inetcore.com, zhanghf@ctbri.com.cn
In-reply-to: <468A61C3.4090601@gmail.com>
References: <17A3AC1D-2C75-4CB5-B393-431E01D74FF5@cisco.com> <fbac70dc0707030125j39dddae8pbc55f64c51987ea2@mail.gmail.com> <468A61C3.4090601@gmail.com>


On Jul 3, 2007, at 7:48 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

Why is this problem specific to IPv6? I currently have two
IPv4 addresses and can run a SIP phone on my machine. I'm sure
the same optimization problem can arise.

I don't think the question is whether it is IPv6-specific; it iswhether it is a good thing to address in IPv6.

References:
- draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-01.txt and draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-02.txt WGLC
  - From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
- Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-01.txt and draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-02.txt WGLC
  - From: "haofeng Zhang" <hfzhang.cn@gmail.com>
- Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-01.txt and draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-02.txt WGLC
  - From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-01.txt and draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-02.txt WGLC
Next by Date: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-01.txt and draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-02.txt WGLC
Previous by thread: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-01.txt and draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-02.txt WGLC
Next by thread: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-01.txt and draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-req-02.txt WGLC
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread