Bob and Brian, I am fine with this and it is good spec. One question in my mind is do we want to use up precious RSVD bits in the RA message or make this an option? It would also work as option as I see it and save using up the RA RSVD header bits.
thanks /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Bob Hinden > Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 8:14 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: IPv6 Work Group Last Call for "Default Router > Preferences and More-Specific Routes" > > This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on > advancing the following document as an Proposed Standard: > > Title : Default Router Preferences and > More-Specific Routes > Author(s) : R. Draves, D. Thaler > Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-03.txt > Pages : 13 > Date : 2003-12-18 > > This is a two week working group last call that will end on > May 18, 2004. > > Please direct substantive comments to the IPv6 mailing list. > Editorial comments can be sent directly to the authors. > > Regards, > Bob & Brian > IPv6 WG co-chairs > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
