As I said in my last message, my goal was to get a message out and
not push new terminology. I agree with Pekka that it doesn't matter at
all whether a router has just one interface or hundreds; it is still a
router.
(In fact, this is nearly the exact response I received when I asked a
related
Pekka,
I meant only what I said - nodes should be able to selectively solicit
at least two different classes of information from routers. (Perhaps
there will be even more classes of information in the future; I
don't know).
Some routers might advertise only prefix/autoconfig information,
so they
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Brian Haberman wrote:
There are two ways we could do this. One would be for the
doc authors to request a value from IANA. The other would be to
push draft-narten-iana-experimental-allocations-05.txt through
the process and utilize it for early
I will be out of the office starting November 26, 2003 and will not return
until December 1, 2003.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
Fred Templin wrote:
The two ways I see to do this are to either specify a new IPv6 ND option
(call it a Type II Router Solicitation for lack of a better name) or
to add
bits to the existing IPv6 Router Soliciation message (e.g., in the
Reserved
field) that indicate the type of information
Responding one final time to my own post, I think we should forget
this business about hijacking and just use Matt's document instead:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups-10.txt
It looks mature, well fleshed out, and has some nice features
like references to
On Nov 26, 2003, at 4:50 PM, Fred Templin wrote:
139 ICMP Node Information Query [Crawford]
140 ICMP Node Information Response [Crawford]
I see that the Router Renumbering option is used by RFC 2894,
but does anyone know if the other options are used
