RE: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 section 2.3

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Mon, 28 March 2011 13:12 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 410E73A680A for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.37
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.371, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N30-ILEzbjAR for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 159B23A6803 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 06:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; l=662; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1301318022; x=1302527622; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=lRWlV/RAxV55TiQU2ipzjkn7zRClWqXsGTdSBnyeyCM=; b=R4KUyRi8sQsLcyWvGQnW7zIbKT6HhrjOK5H8meonxdLis+GBmwvQM2Yo PeC2wic+Rd9TkHgxRWG8oScnFo1aHjmqnq/bTOAhw232ynjXaxlsnkSlB 4Nb1RHdIbNB1KuIJP8+3GYcm3xCLJ/u9LPt/E2nNNofWnrg2V17DOFekf M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgYBADGJkE2tJV2b/2dsb2JhbACYAI0/d6Z8m2aFaQSFOosX
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,255,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="671721377"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2011 13:13:40 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com [72.163.62.138]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2SDDerL011414; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:13:40 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-109.cisco.com ([72.163.62.151]) by xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:13:40 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 section 2.3
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:13:38 -0500
Message-ID: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C30121E5DD@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103281501150.4842@uplift.swm.pp.se>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 section 2.3
Thread-Index: AcvtSMa4kdS9EW+xSS6zbTrYWGnohAAAN6Lg
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103281015240.4842@uplift.swm.pp.se> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C30121E5C1@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103281501150.4842@uplift.swm.pp.se>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2011 13:13:40.0576 (UTC) FILETIME=[F4CE7E00:01CBED49]
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:12:07 -0000

-----Original Message-----
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se] 
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 3:04 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02
section 2.3


>I'm thinking in the terms of multiple routers on the same LAN but with 
>multiple subnets, the multihoming scenario we're discussing in v6ops.

Ah, thanks for this clarification.  No I understand the problem at hand.
Sorry, I haven't read the document being discussed here.  Let me started
from the section 2.3 of this document and then also mull over the
multihoming issue.

Thanks,

Hemant