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

Re: RFC 5006 status

To: Syam Madanapalli <smadanapalli@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RFC 5006 status
From: Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:38:57 +0100
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <10e14db21003190722q5c88e25cy3969dc0dcb353830@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4B9DFC7D.3070704@piuha.net> <4BA089F9.5010006@piuha.net> <65B6B54D-98AD-4772-B2E0-6E2CA8DE76C0@cisco.com> <419DB14D-BFDC-4118-BB3E-F4D9570D927D@kurtis.pp.se> <A5AB4B97-11BA-4D27-860C-3811D075BFC6@cisco.com> <4BA0EC66.3010403@piuha.net> <308C7176-40DF-4F82-AC2D-A4EAC6E2766B@cisco.com> <818AC122-7E68-45F7-A167-672F7DE47207@free.fr> <10e14db21003190405p323e9ddaoab4aab650971ae3e@mail.gmail.com> <FE0A52AB-91C7-4E88-B055-F95A439B40AE@free.fr> <10e14db21003190722q5c88e25cy3969dc0dcb353830@mail.gmail.com>

Le 19 mars 2010 à 15:22, Syam Madanapalli a écrit :
> And if you are proposing the RA DHCP option for DNS server address
> alone,

I am not.
Just the opposite.
It is RFC 5006 which has this limitation.


> I hope there will not be another proposal for RA into DHCP :-)

Your job, (in any case not mine ;-).

RD

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC 5006 status
  - From: Syam Madanapalli <smadanapalli@gmail.com>

References:
- RFC 5006 status
  - From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
- Re: RFC 5006 status
  - From: Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>
- Re: RFC 5006 status
  - From: Syam Madanapalli <smadanapalli@gmail.com>
- Re: RFC 5006 status
  - From: Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>
- Re: RFC 5006 status
  - From: Syam Madanapalli <smadanapalli@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: Re: RFC 5006 status
Next by Date: Stateless DHCP options "authorized" in RAs, in a standard-format container
Previous by thread: Re: RFC 5006 status
Next by thread: Re: RFC 5006 status
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread