Re: [v6ops] Updating RFC 7084 - alternate logicRe: [v6ops] Updating RFC 7084 - alternate logic
Alexandre Petrescu
2022-12-05
Re: [v6ops] Updating RFC 7084 - alternate logicRe: [v6ops] Updating RFC 7084 - alternate logic
Esko Dijk
2022-12-05
Re: [v6ops] Updating RFC 7084 - alternate logicRe: [v6ops] Updating RFC 7084 - alternate logic
Alexandre Petrescu
2022-12-01
Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
Alexandre Petrescu
2020-11-24
Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
Erik Kline
2020-11-24
Re: [v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]Re: [v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]
Alexandre Petrescu
2020-11-23
Re: [v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]Re: [v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]
Vasilenko Eduard
2020-11-23
Re: [v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]Re: [v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]
Gyan Mishra
2020-11-23
Re: [v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]Re: [v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]
Gyan Mishra
2020-11-23
Re: [v6ops] The bottom is /112 (was: RE: Extending a /64) -- How about new fixed bottom /80 win-win for all - epiphany at 6:54am after v6ops presoRe: [v6ops] The bottom is /112 (was: RE: Extending a /64) -- How about new fixed bottom /80 win-win for all - epiphany at 6:54am after v6ops preso
Gyan Mishra
2020-11-22
Re: [v6ops] The bottom is /112 (was: RE: Extending a /64) -- How about new fixed bottom /80 win-win for all - epiphany at 6:54am after v6ops presoRe: [v6ops] The bottom is /112 (was: RE: Extending a /64) -- How about new fixed bottom /80 win-win for all - epiphany at 6:54am after v6ops preso
Gyan Mishra
2020-11-22
Re: [v6ops] The bottom is /112 (was: RE: Extending a /64) -- How about new fixed bottom /80 win-win for all - epiphany at 6:54am after v6ops presoRe: [v6ops] The bottom is /112 (was: RE: Extending a /64) -- How about new fixed bottom /80 win-win for all - epiphany at 6:54am after v6ops preso
Mark Smith
2020-11-21
Re: [v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]Re: [v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]
Joel M. Halpern
2020-11-21
Re: [v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]Re: [v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]
Joel M. Halpern
2020-11-21
Re: [v6ops] The bottom is /112 (was: RE: Extending a /64) -- How about new fixed bottom /80 win-win for all - epiphany at 6:54am after v6ops presoRe: [v6ops] The bottom is /112 (was: RE: Extending a /64) -- How about new fixed bottom /80 win-win for all - epiphany at 6:54am after v6ops preso
Alexandre Petrescu
2020-11-21
Re: [v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]Re: [v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]
Mark Smith
2020-11-21
Re: [v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]Re: [v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]
Ca By
2020-11-21
Re: [v6ops] The bottom is /112 (was: RE: Extending a /64) -- How about new fixed bottom /80 win-win for all - epiphany at 6:54am after v6ops presoRe: [v6ops] The bottom is /112 (was: RE: Extending a /64) -- How about new fixed bottom /80 win-win for all - epiphany at 6:54am after v6ops preso
Mark Smith
2020-11-21
Re: [v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]Re: [v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]
Mark Smith
2020-11-21
[v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112][v6ops] Next step? [Re: The bottom is /112]
Brian E Carpenter
2020-11-21
Re: [v6ops] The bottom is /112 (was: RE: Extending a /64) -- How about new fixed bottom /80 win-win for all - epiphany at 6:54am after v6ops presoRe: [v6ops] The bottom is /112 (was: RE: Extending a /64) -- How about new fixed bottom /80 win-win for all - epiphany at 6:54am after v6ops preso
Joel M. Halpern
2020-11-21
Re: [v6ops] [E] New Version Notification for draft-mishra-v6ops-variable-slaac-problem-stmt-01.txtRe: [v6ops] [E] New Version Notification for draft-mishra-v6ops-variable-slaac-problem-stmt-01.txt
Alexandre Petrescu
2020-11-06
Re: [v6ops] Implementation of DANIR for IoT Router - DHCPv6-PD and NDRe: [v6ops] Implementation of DANIR for IoT Router - DHCPv6-PD and ND
Alexandre Petrescu
2019-10-30
Re: [v6ops] Implementation of DANIR for IoT Router - DHCPv6-PD and NDRe: [v6ops] Implementation of DANIR for IoT Router - DHCPv6-PD and ND
Li HUANG
2019-10-30
Re: [v6ops] Implementation of DANIR for IoT Router - DHCPv6-PD and NDRe: [v6ops] Implementation of DANIR for IoT Router - DHCPv6-PD and ND
Dmytro Shytyi
2019-10-29
Re: [v6ops] "Getting IPv6 Private Addressing Right" AusNOG presentationRe: [v6ops] "Getting IPv6 Private Addressing Right" AusNOG presentation
Alexandre Petrescu
2019-09-18
Re: [v6ops] "Getting IPv6 Private Addressing Right" AusNOG presentationRe: [v6ops] "Getting IPv6 Private Addressing Right" AusNOG presentation
Mark Smith
2019-09-18
Re: [v6ops] "Getting IPv6 Private Addressing Right" AusNOG presentationRe: [v6ops] "Getting IPv6 Private Addressing Right" AusNOG presentation
Alexandre Petrescu
2019-09-18
Re: [v6ops] "Getting IPv6 Private Addressing Right" AusNOG presentationRe: [v6ops] "Getting IPv6 Private Addressing Right" AusNOG presentation
Alexandre Petrescu
2019-09-18
Re: [v6ops] 464XLAT in wireless home broadbandRe: [v6ops] 464XLAT in wireless home broadband
Ca By
2019-03-28
Re: [v6ops] WGLC: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02 - multiple prefixes per deviceRe: [v6ops] WGLC: draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-02 - multiple prefixes per device
Alexandre Petrescu
2017-03-16
Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPPRe: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP
Fred Baker
2017-03-06
Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPPRe: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP
Alexandre Petrescu
2017-03-06
Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPPRe: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP
2017-03-06
Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPPRe: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP
Brian E Carpenter
2017-03-05
Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPPRe: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP
Alexandre Petrescu
2017-03-05
Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPPRe: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP
Alexandre Petrescu
2017-03-05
Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPPRe: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP
Brian E Carpenter
2017-03-05
Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPPRe: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP
Fred Baker
2017-03-04
Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPPRe: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP
Alexandre Petrescu
2017-03-04
332 Messages