Subject: Re: (ngtrans) draft-ietf-ngtrans-6to4-04.txt

From: Sowmini Varadhan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 17:53:29 -0400 (EDT)

> From [email-masked] Tue Apr 11 16:26:03 2000
> Sowmini,
> 
> Good comments. Most of them I can deal with as text clarifications, but 
> what do you recommend we should say for NUD?

How about something similar to Section 3.8 of draft-ietf-ngtrans-mech-05.txt?

> FYI, the multicast section will be largely removed in the next version;
> it's broken. Dave Thaler offered to do a separate draft on multicast.

Good! The cross-references to PIM were non-intuitive so I'm glad it's
going to be addressed separately.

--Sowmini

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 09:20:33 -0500

> How about something similar to Section 3.8 of draft-ietf-ngtrans-mech-05.txt?

Yes, I thought exactly that while reviewing -mech-05 yesterday. In fact
one possibility is to add a general comment that anything not covered
in the 6to4 spec is done exactly as described for tunnels in -mech-05.

    Brian