Hi,
On 2009-7-27, at 18:46, Rémi Després wrote:
A simple solution would IMHO be to complement to the UDP rule in IPv6
as follows:
- IPv6 hosts MUST create UDP datagrams with non-zero checksums.
(Nothing new here.)
- IPv6 hosts SHOULD accept UDP datagrams with zero checksum.
(Application of the c
Two constraints on IPv6 address formats appear to be unnecessary
while prohibiting some designs that are useful to enhance IPv6 benefits:
- One concerns addresses that never appear on any IPv6 link.
Since only purpose of these addresses is to derive from them some
local addresses subject to I
We understand that UDP checksums being optional in IPv4 and mandatory
in IPv6 creates a problem for IPv4 to IPv6 translators:
(1) To completely translate from v4 to v6 a UDP datagram having a
zero checksum, a complete computation of the datagram checksum is
necessary.
(2) If the datagram has
Fred,
Organizationally, I agree with your asersion that referencing another document
to describe the sub-delegation behavior gives some wiggle room.
-KE
From: Fred Baker [mailto:f...@cisco.com]
Sent: Mon 7/27/2009 6:09 AM
To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Cc: draft-
Let me make an introductory comment on:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-baker-ipv6-prefix-subdelegation
"Prefix Sub-delegation in a SOHO/SMB Environment", Fred Baker, 27-
Jul-09,
In IPv6 Operations, we have two posted documents right now that
comment on prefix subdelegation. These are:
