Pekka,
There are two ways we could do this. One would be for the
doc authors to request a value from IANA. The other would be to
push draft-narten-iana-experimental-allocations-05.txt through
the process and utilize it for early testing/experimentation.Regards, Brian
Pekka Savola wrote:
Hi,
Just hoping to avoid the similar mess as we're having with MIPv6 and MLDv2, would it be possible to pre-assign a Neighbor Discovery Option code for more specific routes extension in:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters
.. this shouldn't cause a problem, as there are no IANA considerations for applying these in RFC2461, and I guess they're allocated in a basically FCFS basis.
Various ímplementations are using various values, at least some of them "9" -- which is already being used for something else.
Would it make thse to try to pre-assign a value at this point so folks could start building interoperable implementations already? :-)
(Assuming that the spec is going to be finished soon.. :-)
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Dave Thaler wrote:
I've gone through the threads that Rich Draves sent me to extract the issues raised with draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-02.txt.
There were a number of relatively minor editorial suggestions to which Rich had responded with an okay. These I am already incorporating into the document.
Besides those, there were 10 issues raised which are now at http://www.icir.org/dthaler/RouterSelectionIssues.htm
I should have a proposed update available prior to IETF.
-Dave
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
