First-Hop Router Selection by Hosts in a Multi-Prefix Network
draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-10
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-11-16
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-11-12
|
10 | Jean Mahoney | Closed request for Last Call review by GENART with state 'No Response' |
2016-11-11
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-10-21
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-10-13
|
10 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IC |
2016-10-13
|
10 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-10-13
|
10 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-10-13
|
10 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-10-13
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2016-10-13
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2016-10-13
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-10-13
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-10-13
|
10 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-10-13
|
10 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2016-10-07
|
10 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot comment] Thank you for addressing my concerns. |
2016-10-07
|
10 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Alia Atlas has been changed to Yes from Discuss |
2016-10-07
|
10 | Brian Carpenter | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-10.txt |
2016-10-07
|
10 | (System) | New version approved |
2016-10-07
|
09 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: " (Unknown)" , "Brian Carpenter" , 6man-chairs@ietf.org |
2016-10-07
|
09 | Brian Carpenter | Uploaded new revision |
2016-08-24
|
09 | Brian Carpenter | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-09.txt |
2016-08-19
|
08 | Brian Carpenter | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2016-08-19
|
08 | Brian Carpenter | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-08.txt |
2016-08-15
|
07 | Jonathan Hardwick | Closed request for Early review by RTGDIR with state 'No Response' |
2016-08-11
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Ben Laurie. |
2016-08-08
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2016-08-04
|
07 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2016-08-04
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2016-08-04
|
07 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2016-08-03
|
07 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2016-08-03
|
07 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2016-08-03
|
07 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2016-08-03
|
07 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2016-08-03
|
07 | Alexey Melnikov | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alexey Melnikov |
2016-08-02
|
07 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2016-08-02
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot comment] Besides my first comment (which matches Alia's DISCUSS, which I support, but offers a slightly different point of view), I don't think that … [Ballot comment] Besides my first comment (which matches Alia's DISCUSS, which I support, but offers a slightly different point of view), I don't think that my comments raise to the point of a DISCUSS, but I would really like them to be considered as a STRONG COMMENT (stronger ones are at the top). 1. First of all, there's the topic of the scope. From Section 1. (Introduction and Applicability): "…the mechanics of egress routing once the packet leaves the host are out of scope." But then in Section 2.2. (Expectations of multi homed networks) you write that "The direct implication of Section 2.1 is that, if the network uses a routing protocol, the routing protocols used in multihomed networks SHOULD implement source-prefix based egress routing". I think that the "SHOULD" goes against the fact that routing is out of scope. While the general statement (of needing src-dst routing) may be true, for the networks shown in 2.1 all you really need is a default route as the topology and the host itself take care of selecting the correct exit point — so it is also not that direct of an implication. Proposed solution: ideally get rid of 2.2, but I'm fine with changing the "SHOULD" for something not in RFC2119, for example may need to/is for future investigation/… 2. In Section 1. (Introduction and Applicability) there are 2 places that say that implementations "will need to extend/add support". What does that mean? This document is a specification of what has to be done, so it shouldn't read like a list of future actions. Given that the next sentence warns that "Hosts that do not support these features may fail to communicate in the presence of filters as described above."…I would like to see the text be a little more prescriptive than just saying "will need to extend" or "will need to add support". "SHOULD" seems appropriate. 2.1. In the same piece of text… "…this specification is consistent with [RFC4861]. Nevertheless, implementers of Sections 5.2, 6.2.3, 6.3.4 and 8 of RFC 4861 will need to extend their implementations accordingly." It would be very nice if the text included the sections where the appropriate extensions are mentioned/defined — presumably these extensions are how RFC4861 is Updated. 2.2. Same text… "This specification is fully consistent with [RFC6724] and implementers will need to add support for its Rule 5.5." It may not be apparent (at this point in the text) to everyone that 5.5 applies to the case where information related to which next-hop advertised which prefix (or that the document is going in that direction) -- please include a reference to section 3.3. 3. In Section 3.1. (Interpreting Router Advertisements), "…Bob-A and one had advertised itself as a default router or as having a route to Alice, that is the router Bob should choose. If none of Bob-A have advertised that but Bob-B has, it is irrelevant; Bob is using the address allocated in PA and courts a BCP 38 discard if he doesn't send the packet to Bob-A." I think this case is irrelevant too, but not because Bob knows/thinks about BCP 38 — it is irrelevant because of Rule 5.5 in rfc6724 (if I'm reading the order of the rules correctly). Please clarify. |
2016-08-02
|
07 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2016-08-02
|
07 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot discuss] In section 2.2, the document says: "The direct implication of Section 2.1 is that, if the network uses a routing protocol, the … [Ballot discuss] In section 2.2, the document says: "The direct implication of Section 2.1 is that, if the network uses a routing protocol, the routing protocols used in multihomed networks SHOULD implement source-prefix based egress routing, for example as described in [I-D.ietf-rtgwg-dst-src-routing]." I understand the desire behind this statement - but find the SHOULD extremely strong given that we don't even have any routing protocol extensions adopted by ISIS, OPSF or even Babel WGs to handle source-prefix based egress routing. I know that we are actively discussing the problems motivating this statement and, I hope, making progress. However, I don't think that the dynamics or scaling or potential looping (for routers that don't support the same source prefixes) have been fully described or resolved. While this problem has been discussed in rtgwg, I do not yet see consensus in the Routing Area that this is the agreed solution. The email sent by v6ops about this problem recommended src-dest-routing as a solution and, indeed, that is being investigated. At a minimum, the language in this section needs to change from SHOULD. |
2016-08-02
|
07 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2016-08-02
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] general: I think this is very verbose, an editing pass to remove as many words as possible would be good, some examples below … [Ballot comment] general: I think this is very verbose, an editing pass to remove as many words as possible would be good, some examples below where I think more words confused me more than was needed... - Abstract: is bcp38 really crucial here or advisory? If the latter, then I'd suggest not making it sound like it is necessary, no matter how much we'd like it deployed. - intro: "the only consistent solution" may be an overstatement (unless you can prove there is no other) - text on p4 after figure 1: it's probably me but I found reading this a slog, not sure if it's really needed, but if (part of) it is, making the necessary bits clearer would seem like a fine plan. If it's not needed, maybe delete some or all of it. - 2.1: When you say SLAAC here, are you encompassing use of privacy addresses? Sometimes those are presented as an alternative to SLAAC but I'm not sure which is the more correct terminology. In any case, I assume this document is intended to fully work with privacy addresses. |
2016-08-02
|
07 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2016-08-01
|
07 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2016-08-01
|
07 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] I have a few minor comments: -1.1, indented paragraphs (A) and (B): It's not entirely clear to me if these restate requirements from … [Ballot comment] I have a few minor comments: -1.1, indented paragraphs (A) and (B): It's not entirely clear to me if these restate requirements from 1122, or if these are requirements from this document that might "confuse" the Strong Host model. If the former, please consider dropping the 2119 keywords. -2.1, first paragraph: Please expand SLAAC on first mention. - 2.1, 2nd paragraph: s/implementation/implementations s/the two routers may not even know/each router may not even know -3, title: Does this refer to expectations the host has, or that other things have of the host? If the latter, what expects them? (Previous section talked about expectations the host has on the network; is this section about expectations the network (operator) has on the host? |
2016-08-01
|
07 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2016-08-01
|
07 | Mirja Kühlewind | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mirja Kühlewind |
2016-08-01
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot has been issued |
2016-08-01
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Suresh Krishnan |
2016-08-01
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | Created "Approve" ballot |
2016-08-01
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-07-26
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-08-04 |
2016-07-25
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Eric Vyncke |
2016-07-25
|
07 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Eric Vyncke |
2016-07-18
|
07 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2016-07-18
|
07 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-07.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-07.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
2016-07-14
|
07 | Jon Hudson | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Julien Meuric |
2016-07-14
|
07 | Jon Hudson | Request for Early review by RTGDIR is assigned to Julien Meuric |
2016-07-14
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Fernando Gont |
2016-07-14
|
07 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Fernando Gont |
2016-07-14
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ben Laurie |
2016-07-14
|
07 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Ben Laurie |
2016-07-14
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2016-07-14
|
07 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: ipv6@ietf.org, "Jouni Korhonen" , suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, jounikor@gmail.com, draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: ipv6@ietf.org, "Jouni Korhonen" , suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, jounikor@gmail.com, draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@ietf.org Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Routing packets from hosts in a multi-prefix network) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to consider the following document: - 'Routing packets from hosts in a multi-prefix network' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-08-04. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes expected IPv6 host behavior in a scenario that has more than one prefix, each allocated by an upstream network that implements BCP 38 ingress filtering, when the host has multiple routers to choose from. It also applies to other scenarios such as the usage of stateful firewalls that effectively act as address-based filters. This host behavior may interact with source address selection in a given implementation, but logically follows it. Given that the network or host is, or appears to be, multihomed with multiple provider-allocated addresses, that the host has elected to use a source address in a given prefix, and that some but not all neighboring routers are advertising that prefix in their Router Advertisement Prefix Information Options, this document specifies to which router a host should present its transmission. It updates RFC 4861. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2016-07-14
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2016-07-14
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
2016-07-13
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | Last call was requested |
2016-07-13
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2016-07-13
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Last Call Requested |
2016-07-13
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | Last call was requested |
2016-07-13
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | Last call announcement was generated |
2016-07-13
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-07-13
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | Ballot writeup was generated |
2016-07-13
|
07 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2016-06-23
|
07 | Brian Carpenter | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-07.txt |
2016-06-08
|
06 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Zhen Cao. |
2016-05-25
|
06 | Carlos Jesús Bernardos | Request for Early review by INTDIR Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Carlos Bernardos. |
2016-05-20
|
06 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Zhen Cao |
2016-05-20
|
06 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Zhen Cao |
2016-05-20
|
06 | Bernie Volz | Assignment of request for Early review by INTDIR to DENG Hui was rejected |
2016-05-18
|
06 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to DENG Hui |
2016-05-18
|
06 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to DENG Hui |
2016-05-18
|
06 | Bernie Volz | Assignment of request for Early review by INTDIR to Joe Abley was rejected |
2016-05-17
|
06 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Carlos Bernardos |
2016-05-17
|
06 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Carlos Bernardos |
2016-05-17
|
06 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Joe Abley |
2016-05-17
|
06 | Bernie Volz | Request for Early review by INTDIR is assigned to Joe Abley |
2016-05-09
|
06 | Suresh Krishnan | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2016-05-05
|
06 | Bob Hinden | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? Proposed Standard. The type is indicated in the title page header. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document describes expected IPv6 host behavior in a network that has more than one prefix and next-hop routers to choose from, and each prefix allocated by an upstream network/router also implements BCP 38 (RFC2827) ingress filtering. The document also applies to other deployment cases such as the usage of stateful firewalls. The solution described in the document may interact with the RFC6724 source address selection Rule 5.5. This concerns the situation where a multihomed host has multiple provider allocated addresses (formed from a Router Advertisement advertised prefixes received from multiple but not necessarily all next-hop routers) and the host should know to which router to send its traffic sourced from a given source address. The document updates RFC4861. Working Group Summary The document has the support of the WG. There is no points with controversy and/or rough consensus. Document Quality The solution described in the document is already implemented in some form by some popular operating system IP stacks. The document does not contain MIBs, Media Types or other expert review requiring material. Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director? Jouni Korhonen (jouni.nospam@gmail.com) is the document Shepherd. Suresh Krishnan (suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com) is the responsible Area Director. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The shepherd has done a review of the -06 version of the document and found it ready for publication. There are some small editorial nits that can and will be corrected by the RFC Editor. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. Not really. The shepherd does recommend that the Int-Dir also reviews the document as a part of the typical directorate review cycle (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. None. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes. Both authors indicated they have no knowledge of IPRs on this document. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? The document has been discussed in length in the 6MAN WG. There is a consensus behind this document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No IDnits found that need to be corrected. Some of the reported IDnits are either mistakenly caught editorial issues or would be automatically corrected when a new revision of the document is produced. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. Not applicable. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? None. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. None. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. Yes. RFC4681 will be updated and this is indicated in the title page header and the abstract. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). Not applicable. There are no requests to IANA. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. Not applicable. There are no requests to IANA. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. Not applicable. |
2016-05-05
|
06 | Bob Hinden | Responsible AD changed to Suresh Krishnan |
2016-05-05
|
06 | Bob Hinden | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2016-05-05
|
06 | Bob Hinden | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2016-05-05
|
06 | Bob Hinden | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2016-05-05
|
06 | Bob Hinden | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2016-05-05
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | Notification list changed to "Jouni Korhonen" <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> from "Jouni Korhonen" <jounikor@gmail.com> |
2016-05-05
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2016-05-05
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2016-05-04
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2016-05-03
|
06 | Jouni Korhonen | Changed document writeup |
2016-04-21
|
06 | Ole Trøan | Notification list changed to "Jouni Korhonen" <jounikor@gmail.com> |
2016-04-21
|
06 | Ole Trøan | Document shepherd changed to Jouni Korhonen |
2016-02-22
|
06 | Fred Baker | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-06.txt |
2016-02-22
|
05 | Fred Baker | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-05.txt |
2016-02-18
|
04 | Fred Baker | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-04.txt |
2016-02-04
|
03 | Bob Hinden | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2016-02-04
|
03 | Bob Hinden | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2016-02-04
|
03 | Bob Hinden | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-12-16
|
03 | Brian Carpenter | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-03.txt |
2015-11-03
|
02 | Fred Baker | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-02.txt |
2015-10-15
|
01 | Fred Baker | This document now replaces draft-baker-6man-multi-homed-host instead of None |
2015-10-15
|
01 | Fred Baker | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-01.txt |
2015-10-15
|
00 | Fred Baker | New version available: draft-ietf-6man-multi-homed-host-00.txt |