[139419] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 Avian Carriers?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Brim)
Thu Apr 7 15:40:09 2011
In-Reply-To: <19358.1302204953@localhost>
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 15:39:03 -0400
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 15:35, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Apr 2011 12:23:12 PDT, Jeroen van Aart said:
> > Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
> > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6214/
> >
> > That RFC is the opposite of funny (to me). Just because rfc1149 is funny
> > that doesn't mean that repetitions of it are funny too. Quite the
> contrary.
>
> Yes, but I bet many providers recognize rfc1149 now. rfc6214 gives us a
> new
> brown M&M to put into the contracts...
>
You need to specify "tail drop" behavior.
