Elwyn,
On Jul 12, 2005, at 10:38, Elwyn Davies wrote:
I can see that the world is against me here ;-) , but I am not sure
that giving in quietly is actually the right answer in this case!
If you are offering alternatives, it is a legitimate question to ask
whether all nodes in some context hav
I can see that the world is against me here ;-) , but I am not sure that
giving in quietly is actually the right answer in this case!
If you are offering alternatives, it is a legitimate question to ask
whether all nodes in some context have to use the same alternative to
achieve interoperabilit
On Jul 12, 2005, at 3:49, Elwyn Davies wrote:
I was thinking of something along the lines of:
...joining and leaving the solicited-node multicast group SHOULD be
done using MLD v1 [MLD] or v2 {RFC3810]. Section 8 of [RFC3810]
explains how nodes using MLDv1 and MLDv2 can coexist on a link.
I was thinking of something along the lines of:
...joining and leaving the solicited-node multicast group SHOULD be done
using MLD v1 [MLD] or v2 {RFC3810]. Section 8 of [RFC3810] explains how
nodes using MLDv1 and MLDv2 can coexist on a link.
Elwyn
Soliman, Hesham wrote:
> This is a very p
> This is a very purist view. Even if you don't tell them
> what to do, at
> least give them a hint that they ought to think about the issue.
> I suggest you put in a pointer to s.8 of 3810.
=> I don't think there is a problem with adding a hint. The issue
is 2461bis is not the right plac
This is a very purist view. Even if you don't tell them what to do, at
least give them a hint that they ought to think about the issue.
I suggest you put in a pointer to s.8 of 3810.
Regards,
Elwyn
Soliman, Hesham wrote:
> > My understanding that as well as a reference to MLDv2 we
> would ne
