Section 11.2 of draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis-08.txt contains a slight
error:
int on = 1;
setsockopt(fd, IPPROTO_IPV6, IPV6_DONTFRAG, on, sizeof(on));
s/sizeof(on)/sizeof(on)/
mph
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002 17:16:20 -0400
Kyle C Quest [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
This is wrong direction to go. MOST applications should never care
whether the communication is over IPv6 or IPv4 (or whatever
IPvX).
If a new IPv6 application is written, it should work the same with
IPv4
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002 13:03:53 +0900
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002 13:52:58 -0700,
Michael Hunter [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
[4 people's opinions about ip6r0_addr]
(correct me if I'm wrong or miss someone.)
That is as I read
In 2292bis (rev 7) there are two errors:
1) ND_OPT_PI_FLAG_ROUTER only shows up in section 15 (summary of new
definitions).
2) ip6_ext shows up in section 15 (summary of new definitions) but it
is mentioned in the change log as having been removed. There is no
text describing it.
In 2292bis the version 0 routing header is specified in section 2.1.2
as
/* Type 0 Routing header */
struct ip6_rthdr0 {
uint8_t ip6r0_nxt; /* next header */
uint8_t ip6r0_len; /* length in units of 8 octets */
uint8_t ip6r0_type; /*
