I agree with Thomas on this document.
Bob
On Oct 24, 2007, at 7:31 AM, ext Thomas Narten wrote:
Bob Hinden and I had some further offlist discussion about this.
My understanding is that the IPv4 RA option is very basic. It says
"look at this packet". The option itself doesn't contain any
additional information or "hint" as to what to look for or what the
packet contains.
The semantics of the IPv6 router alert option are different. The value
itself is used to convey additional "hints" about processing.
My sense is that the semantics of the IPv4 and IPv6 Router Alert
option are sufficiently different that sharing the name space just
doesn't make any sense.
That is, the ID says:
This document proposes the creation of a new IANA registry for
managing IPv4 Router Alert Option Values. In conjunction with
this, it also proposes an update to the way in which IPv6 Router
Alert Option Values are assigned in the existing IANA registry.
But there are no defined IPv4 Router Alert Option values (other than
zero), and it would be inappropriate to change the semantics of any
existing usages (too late for that) and it would also be inappropriate
to consider doing this in the absense of a specific new application
that would make use of a new value. This document does not propose
such a new usage.
Hence, at this point, I'm opposed to the actions called for in the
document.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
