| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
| --- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Hello Jerome and Pascal: You may to see how it is done for IPv4 and IPv6 with the TCLAS element Type-4 (in Clause 9.4.2.30 of IEEE802.11-2020) Cheers— Ganesh. From: Jerome Henry (jerhenry) <00001307e486ca96-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--- This message came from the IEEE 802.11 Task Group M Technical Reflector ---
Dear all, Today in the 11me call we presented
this document, that proposes a fix to the definition of “proxy ARP” for Ipv6 (given that Proxy ARP does not exist in Ipv6, and in general ND and addressing present different challenges in Ipv6 than in IPv4). One feedback received was a question about the split of Ipv4 and IPv6 (thus having one subclause to define the proxy function for IPv4, another subclause for the same function in IPv6). We did not hear a lot of feedback on that idea. Splitting
adds clarity, but may also cause deeper changes to our spec. Please provide feedback to the list to give us a direction on whether to keep a single clause describing each mode (“For IPv4” -> some paragraphs, than a new paragraph starting with “For IPv6” ->
some other paragraphs). Thanks! Pascal and Jerome To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1 To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-11-TGM list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-11-TGM&A=1 |