> On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:57:14 +0100,
> Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I also don't think we should rewrite all the RFCs that refer to SL.
> I have no problem with listing them, as in
> Note that the following documents refer to link local addresses
> and will require ap
Messages | Bytes| Who
+--++--+
8.86% | 14 | 9.20% |73940 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6.96% | 11 | 9.81% |78844 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
6.96% | 11 | 8.94% |71821 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
7.59% | 12 | 5.94% |477
you are right. not all prefixes for the particular link. all prefixes
advertised by the router.
Vijay
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
the complete bit is one solution for this. if the bit is set, it
means all the prefixes for that particular link are included in t
IPv6 has been receptive to all changes. How fast they accept them is
directly proportional to the way it is presented to them.
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 3:20 PM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Soliman Hesham; [E
Fatal typo below ;)
> > I have one question. Is it possible for us to define
> > complete bit in DNA?
>
> => Of course. MIPv6 extended ND in the MIPv6 specification.
> There is no reason why any WG in IETF can do the same.
=> ^^
