Subject: Re: [netext] #18: Interface marking is needed

From: "netext issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:57:09 -0000

#18: Interface marking is needed

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Hi,

 Apologies for the late reply.

 As I understand it, issue #19 is related to this. In -05, the proposed re-
 use of some of the extensions defined in RFC5648 and RFC6089 are basically
 providing support similar to what you are referring in this issue.

 Please, let me know why the solution described in #19 does not solve your
 concerns.

-- 
--------------------------------+--------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]   |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  defect              |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major               |   Milestone:  milestone1
Component:  pmipv6-flowmob      |     Version:  2.0
 Severity:  Active WG Document  |  Resolution:
 Keywords:  PMIP flow mobility  |
--------------------------------+--------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/netext/trac/ticket/18#comment:1>
netext <http://tools.ietf.org/netext/>