I agree with that, but we seem to have a small problem.
RFC 2460 says that unrecognized extension headers should
lead to a discard and an ICMP Parameter Problem message,
and RFC 6434 confirms this - but without adding the extension
headers defined since RFC 2460. Thus the Internet is partially
Brian,
I agree with that, but we seem to have a small problem.
RFC 2460 says that unrecognized extension headers should
lead to a discard and an ICMP Parameter Problem message,
and RFC 6434 confirms this - but without adding the extension
headers defined since RFC 2460. Thus the Internet
On 2012-05-23 08:47, Ole Trøan wrote:
Brian,
I agree with that, but we seem to have a small problem.
RFC 2460 says that unrecognized extension headers should
lead to a discard and an ICMP Parameter Problem message,
and RFC 6434 confirms this - but without adding the extension
headers
Dear all,
Many thanks for the individuals who read the draft and provided some comment.
My read of the the answers received in this thread is there is no strong
reasons to question the design choices as documented in the draft.
FWIW, I just submitted a updated version taking into account the
Med,
On May 23, 2012, at 6:20 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Dear all,
Many thanks for the individuals who read the draft and provided some comment.
My read of the the answers received in this thread is there is no strong
reasons to question the
Dear Bob,
Yes, I read that message. It is one of reasons I added two appendixes to
explain:
* Why an Address Format is Needed for Multicast IPv4-IPv6 Interconnection?
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-02#appendix-A.1)
* Why Identifying an IPv4-Embedded
