On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 08:20:22 +0900, Masataka Ohta said: > As for requirements for IPv6 routers, how do you think about the > following requirement by rfc4443?
44443 Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification. A. Conta, S. Deering, M. Gupta, Ed.. March 2006. (Format: TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC2463) (Updates RFC2780) (Updated by RFC4884) (Also STD0089) (Status: INTERNET STANDARD) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC4443) > rfc1812 says: 1812 Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers. F. Baker, Ed.. June 1995. (Format: TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1716, RFC1009) (Updated by RFC2644, RFC6633) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC1812) I suppose you never considered that in the 11 years intervening, we decided that maybe things should be done differently. > IPv6 specification is fatally broken in various ways. Oddly enough, it doesn't seem to be fatally broken from where I am, or from where Google is, or from where Facebook is, or from where most of the cellphone companies are. You must have a different definition of "fatally broken" than the rest of us.
pgpBf75WZkmZ4.pgp
Description: PGP signature