Soliman Hesham wrote:
> When this problem was noted in the early days I remember > suggesting adding
> "Solicited" bit to the router advertisement to address this > issue. Because
> of backward compatibility problems that solution will no > longer work well.
> > Is there some reason why we wouldn't want to add a new bit, say the
> "Complete" bit, to the reserved field of the router > advertisement? I realize
> I just finished ranting against adding new bits but using > one of the reserved
> bits for this purpose seems cleaner to me.
=> Apart from the fact that we have less reserved bits than codes, is there any difference that you see between adding a bit to the RS/RA Vs adding a new code?
A solicited bit doesn't tell you who solicited it in the first place if the RA is multicast (so an S-bit only says we're likely to be sending all PIOs).
Since most RA systems multicast responses, this may be a big issue.
Erik had some ideas about this off-list though.
Greg
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
