> Assuming it's okay for Christian to mention other documents on
> details, can you live with the last proposal from Ralph?
>
>The details of how a host uses the M flag from a valid Router
>Advertisement it receives will be described in a separate document.
I can
> On Wed, 19 May 2004 10:56:39 -0700 (PDT),
> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So if you think that the existence of the ManagedFlag implies that there
> is an API (which I don't think FWIW) then shouldn't you argue that
> all existance of ManagedFlag (and OtherConfigFlag) should
Hi Ootomo
See comments inline.
Regards
Suresh
On Thu, 20 May 2004, OOTOMO Hiroyuki wrote:
>Hi Shresh.
>
>> This packet will NEVER reach host-4. Consider the packet when it
>> reaches router-1
><<< snipped >>>
>> router-1 will follow the algorithm for RH processing. The Segments Left is
> Just checking. We do need the M bit for those wanting to use stateful? Or
> do you not agree?
I agree with the Jinmei's definition that the M bit indicates to the host
that DHCPv6 for IP address configuration is available on the link.
With that definition it is possible to build hosts that in
> On Wed, 19 May 2004 12:16:27 +0200,
> Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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.
Okay, but after re-reading the proposed new text, I then c
Hi Shresh.
> This packet will NEVER reach host-4. Consider the packet when it
> reaches router-1
<<< snipped >>>
> router-1 will follow the algorithm for RH processing. The Segments Left is
> greater than 0. So it will check the header ext len and find it to be odd.
> It will drop the packet an
