Toerless Eckert <[email protected]> wrote: > So lets assume you could implement IPv6 compliant with RFC8200 without > observing RFC8504 (or its predecessors), but that implementation would > not necessarily interoperate with other RFC8200 implementation which > where build observing RFC8504 (or its predecessors).
I think you could build an IPv6 router without caring about the host parts of 8504, if your router never actually received packets, but only forwarded them. (How would you manage it... nevermind that part) Anyway 8504 says: This document tries to avoid discussion of protocol details and references RFCs for this purpose. This document is intended to be an applicability statement and to provide guidance as to which IPv6 specifications should be implemented in the general case and which specifications may be of interest to specific deployment scenarios. This document does not update any individual protocol document RFCs. So our BCP is a bit similiar, but may far less grandiose. I started the document to answer questions about to build the internals. Some things popped out that turned out to have bits-on-the-wire implications, and a few of those things we got into 8995 while it sat in RFC-editor-Q. I suspect that there might be a few more things like that, but I can't put a finger on any of them right now. In many cases, I/we came to the conclusion that the suggestions had interoperability implications only after a lot of thought. I don't think we should worry too much about what kind of RFC and what things it might update now. -- ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [ ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [ -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
