Hello Ken,
Erik suggested in his email definnig a new type for
the RS. The use of this new type should be enough
to show the HA that the request is coming from a MN
and that it is not a normal RS.
I think doing that removes the need for the Home address
option and the additional complication
This sort of minutiae begs for reality checking.
In the IPv6 spec (RFC 2460), you can see "destination options" occur in TWO
places in an unprotected packet. The first place is the obvious place of
just-before-the-transport-header. The second place is the more subtle
just-before-the-routing-hea
Brian Carpenter writes:
> 6to4 is meant to do more than imply it:
[...]
You're right.
> And BTW it isn't a draft; it's an RFC. I don't know if the
> announcement is
> out, because I don't seem to be able to receive email this
> morning, only
> send it, but the authors' 48 hour check on the RFC
Date:Sun, 18 Feb 2001 16:04:35 -0800 (PST)
From:Dan McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| (The correct answer for the second part (IMHO) is "yes". The correct answer
| for the third part (again, IMHO) is "no".)
I agree, and that also ass
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:05:15 -0600,
> "Matt Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> | (By the way Robert, are the ICMP "tell me your
>> | site local addresses" and ICMP "site local source exiting the site" messages
>> | you mention [...]?
>>
>> The former is certainly new.
> No -- dra
At 10:52 AM +0700 2/17/01, Robert Elz wrote:
>...it would be nice if we (more or less technical people) could
>confine ourselves to the technical arguments, and ignore this
>nonsense about how difficult it will be to assign consecutive integers.
Those who ignore history
