IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pim] pim-ipv4-prefix-over-ipv6-nh WGLC

<zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn> Thu, 06 September 2018 09:16 UTC

Return-Path: <zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn>
X-Original-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BCFC130DEA for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 02:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F5xNOAtGu_Tm for <pim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 02:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxhk.zte.com.cn (mxhk.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 118DC130DC8 for <pim@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 02:16:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse02.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.21]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id 0FDEBF6FE5771892CDDB; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:16:41 +0800 (CST)
Received: from njxapp03.zte.com.cn ([10.41.132.202]) by mse02.zte.com.cn with SMTP id w869GXiI096741; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:16:33 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn)
Received: from mapi (njxapp01[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid203; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:16:35 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2018 17:16:35 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2af95b90f073f4590df2
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <201809061716357430461@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <8CCB28152EA2E14A96BBEDC15823481A1CCA37C6@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: 8CCB28152EA2E14A96BBEDC15823481A1CCA37C6@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: zhang.zheng@zte.com.cn
To: Michael.McBride@huawei.com
Cc: pim@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse02.zte.com.cn w869GXiI096741
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pim/1jCNcKqhwHq0uI7Wxbg70w5wN9Y>
Subject: Re: [pim] pim-ipv4-prefix-over-ipv6-nh WGLC
X-BeenThere: pim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Protocol Independent Multicast <pim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pim/>
List-Post: <mailto:pim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim>, <mailto:pim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2018 09:16:45 -0000

I have a small question:



According to section 4.3.4 in RFC7761, there can be multiple addresses in the secondary address list. 


Is there any rule to choose the according neighbor address from the list?


Or is the neighbor address selected randomly?






Thanks,


Sandy











原始邮件



发件人：MichaelMcBride <Michael.McBride@huawei.com>
收件人：pim@ietf.org <pim@ietf.org>
日 期 ：2018年08月14日 09:24
主 题 ：[pim] pim-ipv4-prefix-over-ipv6-nh WGLC


_______________________________________________
pim mailing list
pim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pim

  

Hello folks,


 


Today begins a two week wglc for informational draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-ipv4-prefix-over-ipv6-nh-02. Please give it a read (it’s 4 pages) and provide feedback on it’s readiness to be sent to the IESG for publication. In Montreal we had 3 in favor, none against. What say you?


 


Thanks,


mike

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email