Subject: RE: [Tsvwg] v6 address selection

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 09:14:07 +0300

Hi Randy,

> I also would like to get Steve Deering to weigh in on this. He
> unfortunatly will be out of the office until the 23 of May :< Maybe 
> John Loughney can get Robert Hinden to have a look? 

I just pinged Bob with La Monte's summary, plus a link to the archives.
Hopefully Bob will have the bandwidth to review this.

I support the IPv6 address scoping clarification in the bis document.
I think the whole point of IPv6 & SCTP is to make the Internet work
better.  Do we really want to go forward knowing that there are 
issues that could lead to problems?

br,
John

_______________________________________________
tsvwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsvwg

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 00:17:12 -0400 (EDT)

Exactly John.  Randy's text insures that site-local will work when the IP
addrs in the header for the SCTP association are site-local (by definition
if the packet gets to the node they are in the same site).  But if the IP
addres in the header for the SCTP association are global then putting
site-locals as address parameters (as future endpoint connections) is
irresponsible.

/jim

On Mon, 14 May 2001 [email-masked] wrote:

> ---
> You are currently subscribed to sigtran as: [email-masked]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]
>