issues
search
ietf-wg-snac
/
draft-ietf-snac-simple
Automatically Connecting Stub Networks to Unmanaged Infrastructure
2
stars
5
forks
source link
issues
Newest
Newest
Most commented
Recently updated
Oldest
Least commented
Least recently updated
Update to "5.1.1. Usable On-Link Prefixes"
#41
jwhui
closed
7 months ago
0
Updates to "5.2.2 Generating a per-stub-router ULA site prefix"
#40
jwhui
closed
7 months ago
0
Updates to "5.2.1 Maintenance across stub router restarts"
#39
jwhui
closed
7 months ago
0
Review if any items of draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-04 are useful / applicable to stub router
#38
EskoDijk
opened
11 months ago
7
More details on DHCPv6-PD prefix renew/rebind conditions + AIL change situations
#37
EskoDijk
closed
3 months ago
1
Make all contents of RA sent by stub router explicit, and with rationale
#36
EskoDijk
closed
3 months ago
0
Clarify SNAC solution assumes the IPv6 host on AIL is a Type C Host
#35
EskoDijk
closed
7 months ago
0
Add requirements for not advertising default router/route on AIL
#34
EskoDijk
closed
7 months ago
2
Clarify text "as needed"
#33
EskoDijk
closed
4 months ago
1
Should a stub router learn RA header parameters from other routers?
#32
superwhd
closed
7 months ago
4
Relax the requirement on a single 'root' ULA prefix generated by stub router
#31
EskoDijk
closed
7 months ago
11
Add restriction that usable prefix must be /64; reference RFC 7084 section 4.3 requirement L-2.
#30
Abhayakara
closed
7 months ago
1
Some points to address from Darren Dukes' review
#29
Abhayakara
closed
7 months ago
0
Editorial suggestions
#28
darrendukes
closed
1 year ago
0
Update text around use of DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation
#27
jwhui
closed
1 year ago
0
Florian Obser: MAY use prefix delegation, or SHOULD?
#26
Abhayakara
closed
1 year ago
3
add a state machine for NAT64
#25
Abhayakara
opened
1 year ago
1
Ted Lemon: Some complexities in how infrastructure-provided NAT64 needs to be handled
#24
Abhayakara
closed
1 year ago
0
Tim Wicinski: Suggestion on Constants
#23
Abhayakara
closed
1 year ago
0
Esko Dijk: Do we need to make explicit that stub router itself doesn't do/need DHCPv6-PD server?
#22
Abhayakara
closed
1 year ago
0
Esko Dijk: Make DHCPv6-PD client role mandatory for stub router
#21
Abhayakara
closed
1 year ago
0
Esko Dijk: 'm' bit in RA header review comment -> should be 'a' bit in PIO
#20
Abhayakara
closed
1 year ago
0
Esko Dijk: Replace acronym "BR" by "stub router" in Section 5.2.3
#19
Abhayakara
closed
1 year ago
0
Esko Dijk: Add terms "stub router" and "stub network" to glossary.
#18
Abhayakara
closed
1 year ago
0
Michael Richardson suggests that the lack of ND on a 6lowpan link is …
#17
Abhayakara
closed
1 year ago
0
Jonathan Hui pointed out that we are saying to set the "Stub Router" …
#16
Abhayakara
closed
1 year ago
0
A couple of tweaks to Tim's edits in the pull request "define AIL (14)".
#15
Abhayakara
closed
1 year ago
0
define AIL
#14
moonshiner
closed
1 year ago
0
Suggestion on Constants
#13
moonshiner
closed
1 year ago
0
minor edits
#12
moonshiner
closed
1 year ago
0
Services provided to network
#11
mcr
closed
1 year ago
1
network infrastructure could be mis-understood
#10
mcr
closed
1 year ago
0
Some complexities in how infrastructure-provided NAT64 needs to be handled.
#9
Abhayakara
closed
1 year ago
0
Do we need to make explicit that stub router itself doesn't do/need DHCPv6-PD server?
#8
EskoDijk
closed
1 year ago
1
Make DHCPv6-PD client role mandatory for stub router - review comment
#7
EskoDijk
closed
1 year ago
0
'm' bit in RA header review comment -> should be 'a' bit in PIO
#6
EskoDijk
closed
1 year ago
0
Replace acronym "BR" by "stub router" in Section 5.2.3
#5
EskoDijk
closed
1 year ago
0
Add terms "stub router" and "stub network" to glossary
#4
EskoDijk
closed
1 year ago
0
MCR: another justification for routing
#3
Abhayakara
closed
1 year ago
1
Stub network prefix bit text is wrong.
#2
Abhayakara
closed
1 year ago
1
More comments from Michael Richardson.
#1
Abhayakara
closed
1 year ago
0
Previous