On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 11:10:54AM +1000, Greg Daley wrote: > > I'm (currently) leaning toward (2) > > 2. M=1 => Solicit/Advertise/Request/Reply is available > O=1 => Information-request/Reply is available > > As Ralph mentioned though, the idea of preventing configuration > combinations may be less useful than defining how to behave in > the case of flag reception. I suppose that comes back to the > original aim of the draft authors neither to recommend or proscribe > behaviours...
This could be reasonable, now we know what the protocols associated with the flags are. This wasn't known when 2462 was first settled, but we have a chance to nail it down for 2462-bis. It also reinforces the "hint" nature of the flags. But we need to be careful too in that the Node Requirements draft is just coming out of the oven and was baked using a different recipe :) tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
