> This is a very purist view. Even if you don't tell them > what to do, at > least give them a hint that they ought to think about the issue. > I suggest you put in a pointer to s.8 of 3810.
=> I don't think there is a problem with adding a hint. The issue is 2461bis is not the right place for it. I guess whoever updates 3810 in future can consider this point. For now I think it's sufficient to add a reference in 2461bis. Hesham > > Regards, > Elwyn > > Soliman, Hesham wrote: > > > > > My understanding that as well as a reference to MLDv2 we > > > would need to > > > > mention that if any of the routers are 'legacy' that > support only > > > > MLDv1, then any MLDv2 routers would have to have their > > > configuration > > > > flags set to make them operate in MLDv1 compatibility > > > mode. Hosts on > > > > the other hand willl behave correctly whether they are > > > MLDv2 or only > > > > MLDv1 capable. > > > > > > I don't think we want to add MLD configuration guidance in > > > 2461bis. If > > > someone is > > > running a mix of MLDv1 and MLDv2 routers, they need to be > > > aware of the > > > operational > > > guidance provided in RFC 3810. > > > >=> Agreed. This seems like a 3810 issue of how to manage different > >versions on the same link (or ban it). > > > >Hesham > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > >=========================================================== > >This email may contain confidential and privileged material > for the sole use > > of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by > others is strictly > > prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please > contact the sender > > and delete all copies. > >=========================================================== > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
