On 01/31/2012 08:12 AM, Philip Homburg wrote: > "Such traffic absolutely occurs in the wild. I have three reasonably > busy name servers where this is logged as an error from the ipfw code, > e.g." > > Inconclusive. We don't know why that traffic is there. > > So, just remove that requirement from RFC-2460, and the problem is gone.
If you're meaning to remove support for some feature from the standard on the basis that it is not used, then the *you* should prove that is not being used. So far, you're arguments have been based on guesswork. People have reported that this feature is used, and have even provided packets traces showing that. I personally believe it is very dangerous to think about removing something without bothering to consider what might break, and without bothering whether there's stuff (such as translators) that depend on that feature. Fix the bug, and be done with it. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
