> I would like to implement the above, but it is somewhat hard when > there is no assigned type code from IANA. What does it require for > IANA to assign a type code? (same goes with the preferred route > option).
AFAIC, RFC-Editor is responsible for the IANA assignment, thus this draft must be accepted as working group draft in the IETF in advance. You can assign your temporary number to implement it in your lab or somewhere, of course it does not have interoperability. Unfortunately, I (and somebody) am doing the same way as temporary Type of this option. > In my view the router solicitation could be viewed as "service > solicitation", and in addition to normal routers answering with > prefixes, some other "services" could send their own replies with > their own options (like the DNS address), but without prefix > information. > > Of course, single router box can do all answering, if desired. > Yep. Thanks your interesting in this work as co-author of this draft. - Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park) - Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
