> On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 12:06:44 +0200 (EET),
> Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> On the other hand, not implementing (c) could lead to situations where using
>> (d) could result in the ICMPv6 message having a link local address as source
>> if the interface itself only has a link
Hi,
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
That sounds good to me. Why do you want (c) to be removed? Is it because
there is no support for it (or) is there some other reason why reason (c)
should not be implemented.
There is not much support for it, it is too ambiguously defined to be
usefu
Hi Pekka,
That sounds good to me. Why do you want (c) to be removed? Is it because
there is no support for it (or) is there some other reason why reason (c)
should not be implemented.
Cheers
Suresh
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Pekka Savola wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Elwyn Davies wrote:
>>> If yo
The revised wording for (d) (with s/by the same/with the same/) looks OK
but doesn't cover the other corner case for 2.2(b).
Elwyn
At 10:43 12/01/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Elwyn & Pekka,
> In that case, I guess (d) would have to be reworded to better match
> reality, for example, from:
>
>
Elwyn & Pekka,
> In that case, I guess (d) would have to be reworded to better match
> reality, for example, from:
>
> (d) Otherwise, the node's routing table must be examined to
> determine which interface will be used to transmit the message
> to its destination, and a u
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Elwyn Davies wrote:
If you don't implement (c) [I have heard of only one implementation doing
so, and I argued it should be removed], (d) should be needed for ICMP error
message generation, because neither (a) nor (b) applies.
On the other hand, not implementing (c) could lea
Hi.
At 08:31 12/01/2005, Pekka Savola wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
In my implementation of the source address determination algorithm, I
have noticed that branch (d) is never traversed (section 2.2(d) of
RFC1885,RFC2463 and draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-06). This
condition ha
Hi,
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
In my implementation of the source address determination algorithm, I
have noticed that branch (d) is never traversed (section 2.2(d) of
RFC1885,RFC2463 and draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-06). This
condition has been around since RFC1885. Does someone kno
Hi Folks,
In my implementation of the source address determination algorithm, I
have noticed that branch (d) is never traversed (section 2.2(d) of
RFC1885,RFC2463 and draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-06). This
condition has been around since RFC1885. Does someone know under what
condition this branc
