Hi,
On 2009/06/23, at 16:19, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 2009-06-22 11:59, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
On 2009/06/22, at 19:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hi,
Section 2.3 of draft-arifumi-6man-rfc3484-revise-01 says:
2.3. To change ULA address scope to site-local
RFC 5220 Section 2.1.4
Hi Everyone,
I have an ethernet interface for which I am defining the Interface-ID
in a different manner.
For an ethernet interface with MAC "34-56-78-9A-BC-DE", I am defining
the Interface-ID to be "34-56-78-xy-zw-9A-BC-DE" instead of
"36-56-78-FF-FE-9A-BC-DE"
where x,y,z,w are my implementatio
Thanks Hesham, Hemant and Suresh for your responses.
It seems from them that the implied intent was that unicast-destined RSes
should be allowed to be both sent and received and should be handled equally
with multicast-destined ones. If that is the case, shall the RFC text be
amended to reflect
Hi Dmitry,
On 09-06-22 09:51 PM, Dmitry Anipko wrote:
Hello,
I have a question on whether router solicitations with unicast destination
addresses are valid under RFC 4861, and if they are, whether they shall be
handled by routers equally to the solicitations with multicast destination
addres
Dmitry,
An RS with a unicast destination is legal as per RFC 4861. For example,
first time when a host was initialized, the host sent an RS with mcast
destination. Then the host received an RA and the host acquired IPv6
address(es) and is up and running. After a while the host detaches from
the
On 2009-06-22 11:59, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2009/06/22, at 19:01, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Section 2.3 of draft-arifumi-6man-rfc3484-revise-01 says:
>>
>>> 2.3. To change ULA address scope to site-local
>>>
>>> RFC 5220 Section 2.1.4, 2.2.2, and 2.2.3 describes ad
