On Friday 20 October 2006 14:41, Rémi Denis-Courmont
wrote:
Hello,
Hi,
Some random comments:
Thanks for those; see my response inlined below:
The proposed API adds a new IPv6-level socket option
(IPV6_ADDRESS_PREFERENCES). IMHO, it ought to
also specify that this can also be used
Le lundi 23 octobre 2006 11:35, Julien Laganier a écrit :
But this is specified (and somehow discouraged) in the
Appendix: Doing per packet address selection would
certainly be costly because running the algorithm
isn't as cheap as setting a field in a packet.
It surely is more expensive that
FWIW, I largely agree with Bob.
The biggest issue I see with this is that this document requires code
changes on routers in anticipation of a some vague, future possible
new extension type.
I strongly suspect that any such RFC will be largely ignored by
vendors and thus won't be implemented. And
Hi Folks,
Thanks a lot for the comments. I don't see myself ever requesting a
new extension header and I would use Options instead, but since someone
has the option to request one, we need to tighten up the spec. I would
be just as happy if a new document or RFC2460bis (if any) would
Thanks a lot for the comments. I don't see myself ever requesting a
new extension header and I would use Options instead, but since someone
has the option to request one, we need to tighten up the spec.
Actually, I disagree with your conclusion. Just because something
isn't explicitely
