Tatuya,
Thanks for digging up BSD code. Your suggestion for the extra one
sentence in bullet 2 in Section 2 of our drafts makes total sense. I
will add the new bullet suggested by you to the draft and also add
RFC4291 as a Normative Reference to the References section of our draft.
Thanks.
Heman
At Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:36:48 -0700,
Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree that "subnet" by itself is underspecified; in some cases it
> should just be a prefix. I don't think this document uses subnet" to
> mean "link".
>
> However, I do think we should refer to "subnet prefix" in
I need a volunteer for a jabber scribe and another volunteer to take
minutes for Wednesday's morning 6man session.
Don't all volunteer at once, but it is necessary if we are going to
have the meeting.
Thanks in advance,
Bob
-
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I agree that "subnet" by itself is underspecified; in some cases it
> should just be a prefix. I don't think this document uses subnet" to
> mean "link".
>
> However, I do think we should refer to "subnet prefix"
Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Section 2 Step 5.3
> ==
>
> "When address resolution fails, the host SHOULD send an ICMPv6
> Destination Unreachable message."
>
> Where should the node send this message. Isn't it enough to indicate to
> the requesting application that the destination
Ralph Droms wrote:
> I think the term "subnet" should not be used in this document, and
> should be replaced with "prefix" or "link" throughout, as appropriate.
>
> "subnet" is not defined in any of the base IPv6 RFCs, as far as I
> know. The term doesn't appear at all in RFC 2460.Two ins
