On 2005-10-31, Christian Vogt wrote:
...there was consensus on the IPv6 mailing list [1] not to include any
specific support for mobility into the successors to RFC2461/2462. At
least, this was said in the context of delays imposed on MLD Report
transmissions.
(Note: IMO, this is a bit
Begin forwarded message:
From: Brian Haberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: November 1, 2005 13:04:17 EST
To: The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED], Margaret Wasserman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Mark Townsley [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bob Hinden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Request To Advance:
Hello;
If the H-B-H
extension header means "all intermediate nodes must look in here for options to
process", why is the "Router Alert" option needed? As I read the text of
the two RFCs, the Router Alert Option is redundant - just including a H-B-H
header means "intermediate nodes must
one of them sounds like it is redundant. I think the Router Alert predated the HBH header...On Nov 1, 2005, at 6:04 PM, John Spence wrote: Hello; If the H-B-H extension header means "all intermediate nodes must look in here for options to process", why is the "Router Alert" option needed? As I
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 13:11:29 +0900,
Yukiyo Akisada [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
RFC2460 says, the node send Parameter Problem Code 1
when the node doesn't support the next header type.
(snip)
If the subsequent payload is empty, what should the node do?
IPv6 Header
Next Header =
Fred Baker wrote:
one of them sounds like it is redundant. I think the Router Alert
predated the HBH header...
On Nov 1, 2005, at 6:04 PM, John Spence wrote:
Hello;
If the H-B-H extension header means all intermediate nodes must look
in here for options to process, why is the Router Alert
Sorry - that fired too fast.
RFC 2711 also references RFC 2460, so it was built for the H-B-H
extension header. Also, if you look at RFC 3810 (MLDv2), it also
references the Router Alert Option and says:
All MLDv2 messages described in this document MUST be sent with a
link-local IPv6 Source
more like something you turn on - by configuring the protocol that
uses it.
On Nov 1, 2005, at 7:01 PM, vijay gill wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
one of them sounds like it is redundant. I think the Router Alert
predated the HBH header...
On Nov 1, 2005, at 6:04 PM, John Spence wrote:
Hello;
