Hi Ootomo,
See comments inline.
Regards
Suresh
On Tue, 18 May 2004, OOTOMO Hiroyuki wrote:
>Hi, all.
>
>I found a problem in RFC2460, about error processing of Routing Header.
>It does not define the behavior of End Node when the End Node received
>the packet which has odd Hdr.Ext.Len.
>
>
>(S
Erik,
Just checking. We do need the M bit for those wanting to use stateful? Or do you not
agree?
thanks
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Erik Nordmark
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 1:57 PM
> To: Christian Huitema
> Cc: E
> > I'm certainly not implying any API.
> > Why do you think the text with the forward reference to "a separate
> > document"
> > implies any API?
>
> The forward reference is asking the implementers to manage an extraneous
> state variable. As far as ND is concerned, the host can be entirely
> co
Jinmei, I believe your proposed new text at the bottom is correct.
2462bis should not open the door to conflict in future link-layer
specs.
Brian
JINMEI Tatuya wrote:
On Tue, 18 May 2004 17:46:15 +0200,
Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
In this message, I pointed out that there migh
> On Tue, 18 May 2004 20:16:15 -0400,
> Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I share your concern about mandating the implementation of a possibly
> extraneous state variable. Perhaps replacing your suggested text:
> On receipt of a valid Router Advertisement (as defined in
>
> On Tue, 18 May 2004 17:46:15 +0200,
> Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> In this message, I pointed out that there might be possible conflict
>> between the IPv6 address architecture and link specific documents
>> (e.g. IPv6 over ethernet), and asked how we can clarify the p
On Wed, 2004-05-19 at 00:52, Bob Hinden wrote:
> James,
>
> At 02:40 PM 5/18/2004, James Kempf wrote:
> >Is there an RFC or a technical document somewhere with a concise, bulleted
> >list of technical differences between IPv6 and IPv4?
>
> There is a short list in the introduction section of RFC2
