The router alert option has a rather more drastic effect than simply
having a h-b-h extension header. The intention of the h-b-h header (as
has been discussed recently in connection with a proposed QoS related
option) is that h-b-h options should, by default, not need to be
diverted to the
There are notes that can be put on RFCs. However, I should think that
since site-local was deprecated later, this could be left to the next
revision without ambiguity.
On Nov 1, 2005, at 9:24 PM, Eric Klein wrote:
Is there a procedure where we (as a working group) can go back and
modify
Hi,
Here is the agenda for next weeks IPv6 session at the Vancouver
IETF. Please send us changes and requests for additions.
Thanks,
Bob Hinden Brian Haberman
IPv6 Chairs
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Internet Protocol Version 6 WG (IPv6)
Salon D/E
TUESDAY, November 8, 2005
Excellent. Thanks for the insight.
One comment - you did mention an empty h-b-h header. I would
not expect to see an empty one - right - only if I have options
would I attach the extension header to carry them.
Spence
-Original Message-
From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would reword that slightly. Melinda Shoer has been known to suggest
that RSVP might be used as a firewall traversal mechanism, implying
that a NAT/Firewall might be interested in the protocol even though
it is middleware more than router.
It does mean, however, if you receive this
