dnesday, November 02, 2005 9:48 AM
To: 'John Spence'; 'Fred Baker'
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Question about the need for a "Router Alert
Option" (RFC 2711)within a Hop-By-Hop Option Extension Header
(RFC 2460) ...
I like to think of it like this.
A Router alert is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 12:04 AM
>To: John Spence
>Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Question about the need for a "Router Alert
>Option" (RFC 2711) within a Hop-By-Hop Option Extension Header
>(RFC 2460) ...
>
>The router alert opt
m: Brian McGehee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:48 AM
>To: 'John Spence'; 'Fred Baker'
>Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
>Subject: RE: Question about the need for a "Router Alert
>Option" (RFC 2711)within a Hop-By-Hop Option Extens
Tuesday, November 01, 2005 7:25 PM
To: 'Fred Baker'
Cc: 'ipv6@ietf.org'
Subject: RE: Question about the need for a "Router Alert Option"
(RFC 2711) within a Hop-By-Hop Option Extension Header (RFC 2460) ...
Thanks for
The router alert option has a rather more drastic effect than simply
having a h-b-h extension header. The intention of the h-b-h header (as
has been discussed recently in connection with a proposed QoS related
option) is that h-b-h options should, by default, not need to be
diverted to the 'sl
more like something you turn on - by configuring the protocol that
uses it.
On Nov 1, 2005, at 7:01 PM, vijay gill wrote:
Fred Baker wrote:
one of them sounds like it is redundant. I think the Router Alert
predated the HBH header...
On Nov 1, 2005, at 6:04 PM, John Spence wrote:
Hello;
I
'ipv6@ietf.org'
Subject: RE: Question about the need for a "Router Alert
Option" (RFC 2711) within a Hop-By-Hop Option Extension Header
(RFC 2460) ...
Thanks for the quick reply. The Router Alert Option (RFC
2711) is dated October 1999. It says &qu
orgSubject: Re: Question about the
need for a "Router Alert Option" (RFC 2711) within a Hop-By-Hop Option
Extension Header (RFC 2460) ...
one of them sounds like it is redundant. I think the Router Alert
predated the HBH header...
On Nov 1, 2005, at 6:04 PM, John Spence
Fred Baker wrote:
one of them sounds like it is redundant. I think the Router Alert
predated the HBH header...
On Nov 1, 2005, at 6:04 PM, John Spence wrote:
Hello;
If the H-B-H extension header means "all intermediate nodes must look
in here for options to process", why is the "Router Ale
one of them sounds like it is redundant. I think the Router Alert predated the HBH header...On Nov 1, 2005, at 6:04 PM, John Spence wrote: Hello; If the H-B-H extension header means "all intermediate nodes must look in here for options to process", why is the "Router Alert" option needed? As I r
Hello;
If the H-B-H
extension header means "all intermediate nodes must look in here for options to
process", why is the "Router Alert" option needed? As I read the text of
the two RFCs, the Router Alert Option is redundant - just including a H-B-H
header means "intermediate nodes must lo
11 matches
Mail list logo
