Hi Suresh,
Thanks for your reply. I have a doubt on your answer.
As per your comments, there can be two MLD report msg which will join the
node in solicited multicast group . But in the RFC 4861, they have mention
there should be a join request to all node multicast group.
.
RFC 4861
My question is, whenever there is a change in ipv6 address on a node, both
these 2 NA messages will propogate through the network?
or is it really required to share about the link-local address as we are not
at all changing the ipv6 link-local address.?
If link local ipv6 is already active,
Le 16 avr. 2010 à 21:43, Suresh Krishnan a écrit :
I don't know exactly what the status of draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-08 is
today, but it this proposal has IMHO to become quickly a standard-track RFC:
- The ability of skipping an extension header in a node that doesn't know it
is clearly
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : IPv6 Subnet Model: the Relationship between Links and
Subnet Prefixes
Author(s) : H. Singh, et al.
On Apr 20, 2010, at 06:52, Rémi Després wrote:
Waiting for this new extension header to be found useful would be IMHO a
DESIGN MISTAKE: if and when such an extension is found useful, it will be too
late because ALL codes that look for ports will need to be upgraded before
deployment of
Hi James,
Using the experimental status seems to me confusing (and why two numbers
instead of one?)
If the draft becomes a standard-track RFC, as originally proposed but so far
insufficiently supported, we will have all what is needed, simply an cleanly.
I hope this can happen.
Regards,
RD
On Apr 20, 2010, at 09:56, Rémi Després wrote:
Using the experimental status seems to me confusing (and why two numbers
instead of one?)
There are two numbers reserved for protocols, and I was plagued by the
hobgoblins of consistency. I suppose we could assign only one. Or more than
two.
Hi James,
On 10-04-20 01:35 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
On Apr 20, 2010, at 09:56, Rémi Després wrote:
Using the experimental status seems to me confusing (and why two numbers
instead of one?)
There are two numbers reserved for protocols, and I was plagued by the
hobgoblins of consistency.
Hi Niviya,
On 10-04-20 05:09 AM, niviya vijayan wrote:
Hi Suresh,
Thanks for your reply. I have a doubt on your answer.
As per your comments, there can be two MLD report msg which will join
the node in solicited multicast group . But in the RFC 4861, they have
mention there should be a
On Apr 20, 2010, at 15:42, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Simple. All future IPv6 extension headers will use the same next header value
(the one allocated for the GIEH). Anything else can be considered a unknown
upper layer header.
That's proposed informally in the draft, but it doesn't appear to
10 matches
Mail list logo
