Jinmei,
> The question here is the delay useful. To me this would seem useful for
> multicast queries, but I don't see the need for ones for anycast.
I don't see the need (for anycast), either. In fact, in the case of
anycast, the query packet should be delivered to a single responder
only, and t
> On Wed, 18 May 2005 17:14:46 -0700,
> Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> - our implementation currently does NOT delay the response to an
>> anycasted or multicasted query.
> The question here is the delay useful. To me this would seem useful for
> multicast queries, but I don't
Jinmei,
Thanks for your effort of revising the document. I've reviewed the
latest draft, and have some comments. (I must confess in advance that
I don't fully remember the past discussions on this document, and that
I may be repeating points already discussed before.)
I have a few thoughts on you
> On Mon, 9 May 2005 10:56:35 -0400,
> Brian Haberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> A refreshed version of the ICMP Name Lookups draft is available.
> I would especially like WG members who have implementations to
> review the draft and point out discrepancies between the spec and
> t
All,
A refreshed version of the ICMP Name Lookups draft is available.
I would especially like WG members who have implementations to
review the draft and point out discrepancies between the spec and
their code (e.g. unimplemented features).
There are several comments that I will be lookin
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : IPv6 Node Information Queries
Author(s) : M. Crawford, B. Haberman
Filename
