Pekka,
Do we need two implementations even for SHOULD items ?
I don't know of any. I don't claim to know a lot of
ICMP implementations though ;)
If we don't have 2 implementations, what should we do ?
Should we make "per node" as SHOULD and "per interface"
as MAY ?
Regards
Mukesh
> -Orig
Hi, thanks for the prompt response.
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 08:49:54 + (GMT),
> Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I hope that there has been some clarifcation.
Yes, it helped, but I'm still not sure if I understand the entire
point...
> I was concerned that M|O could be used to
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:15:36 -0700 (PDT),
> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> To make it sure, I'm going to talk about the following bullet of
>> Section 3.1:
>>
>> * (adds to 7.2.6) The Optimistic node MAY send an unsolicited
>> Neighbour Advertisement to All Nodes when it fi
On Thu, 5 Aug 2004, Alex Conta wrote:
> "The rate-limiting parameters SHOULD be configurable per node,
> if the node has similar speed/bandwidth interfaces, and/or per
> interface, if the node has disimilar speed/bandwidth interfaces".
I'm slightly concerned whether we have two implementations of
In RFC3484 source address selection is described,
which selects a source address from a candidate
set by defining a total ordering onto the addresses.
Typically (RCOMMENDED) the candidate set consist of just the addresses
assigned to the outgoing interface.
In case that all global addresses assigne
