One thing we may have to care, however, is that the lack of
implementation might be a barrier of recycling the spec as a
DS, since
we'd need to show interoperable implementations.
= Good point. It would be good to get some clarification on whether
this is an
On 15-apr-04, at 17:13, Tim Hartrick wrote:
I don't know of any implementations which depend on these bits for
DHCPv6 invocation or termination. That doesn't mean that none exist.
Also, the whole other config issue is still very much in a state of
flux. Since those mechanisms haven't been
On 16-apr-04, at 8:22, Markus Jork wrote:
If there is an implementation choice to use or not use the NS/NA
mechanism on PPP interfaces, that sounds like a recipe for
interoperability problems to me.
That's not good.
Is there any plan to address this in the upcoming PPP spec
revision (and how)?
Thus the 16 byte hash is stuck in the data part.
If a unsuspecting host gets this packet it expects
data in the portion where the hash now is in place.
First of all, the hash is in the TCP header (I think you're
confused by
the description of the hash calculation), and second
% = At least you and I agree FWIW :)
% Perhaps I missed this discussion, but I can't see
% why they should be put in the global DNS. Unless
% people are trying to prove that these local addresses
% don't require a two face DNS. It's a lost cause I think ;)
%
% Hesham
of course, it is
