one of them sounds like it is redundant. I think the Router Alert predated the HBH header...On Nov 1, 2005, at 6:04 PM, John Spence wrote: Hello; If the H-B-H extension header means "all intermediate nodes must look in here for options to process", why is the "Router Alert" option needed? As I read the text of the two RFCs, the Router Alert Option is redundant - just including a H-B-H header means "intermediate nodes must look at this packet even if it is not addressed to them", which seems to be the same meaning as Router Alert. I must be missing something. Can someone provide a quick answer, or a pointer to the answer so I can research it myself? Thanks very much. John Spence -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- "Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia." (Charles Schulz )
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
