Re: [mif] #5: only one default route? (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG)

#5: only one default route?  (there should be multiple, as for MIF WG)

Comment (by alexandru.petrescu@…):

 On 27 March 2012 15:33, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
 >> Submit to 6man, I think.
 >
 > Thanks for telling us your opinion, Erik.   Is there a reason behind the
 opinion, or did it just spring into your mind like a tiny, perfect flower?

 I was thinking of the RFC3484bis work going on right now.  If there
 are changes that are needed there, it should get reviewed by the same
 group reviewing those other changes right now, yes?  It would be a
 shame if the two I-Ds crossed in flight, but obviously not the end of
 the world.
 _______________________________________________
 mif mailing list
 mif@ietf.org
 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif

-- 
-------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Reporter:  alexandru.petrescu@…     |       Owner:  Alexandru Petrescu
     Type:  enhancement              |      Status:  new
 Priority:  minor                    |   Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  dhcpv6-route-option      |     Version:
 Severity:  In WG Last Call          |  Resolution:
 Keywords:  multiple default routes  |
-------------------------------------+---------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/5#comment:6>
mif <http://tools.ietf.org/mif/>