Dear Brian; On Aug 2, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Lars, It seems to me that it would not violate the spirit of RFC2460 if we added a rule that stacks MUST follow the RFC2460 rule by default but MAY deviate from it for duly configured tunnel end points in routers (where "router" is strictly as defined in section 2 of 2460 and the Note in that section). That would fully preserve the requirement as far as hosts and applications go.
This was exactly the intention of http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-eubanks-chimento-6man-00 We intend to rev this shortly and comments would be appreciated. Regards Marshall
In fact, if draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis is to become an Applicability Statement as we've discussed, that would be a fine document to define such a rule. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
