PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RFC 2460 issue
Off the top of my head I know that RFC3493 needs to be
updated since
the IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS socket option now accepts 0 as a valid hop
count. I really do not understand what a hop
TECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RFC 2460 issue
>
>
>
> > Off the top of my head I know that RFC3493 needs to be
> updated since
> > the IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS socket option now accepts 0 as a valid hop
> > count. I really do not understan
Envoyé : mardi 28 octobre 2003 21:21
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc : [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: RFC 2460 issue
> Off the top of my head I know that RFC3493 needs to be updated since
> the IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS socket option now acc
Hi Fred,
I agree that an ICMPv6 message should be sent by the router but I
think it should be the Time Exceeded message (RFC 2463, section 3.3)
rather than a parameter problem (section 3.4) message.
Regards
Suresh
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Fred Templin wrote:
>Don't know about the sending host,
> Off the top of my head I know that RFC3493 needs to be updated since
> the IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS socket option now accepts 0 as a valid hop
> count. I really do not understand what a hop count of 0 implies and
> why we should bother updating the RFCs.
Heh, yes. I too wondered about what I should do
-Original Message-
From: Fred Templin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 2:35 PM
To: Alain Durand
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RFC 2460 issue
Don't know about the sending host, but perhaps the next forwarding
hop should send an ICMPv6 parameter problem me
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Jari/John,
That sounds fine but it is not just RFC 2460 that needs to be updated
but perhaps many others. Off the top of my head I know that RFC3493 needs
to be updated since the IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS socket option now accepts 0 as a
valid hop count.
TECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 2:35 PM
> To: Alain Durand
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: RFC 2460 issue
>
>
> Don't know about the sending host, but perhaps the next forwarding
> hop should send an ICMPv6 parameter problem message (RFC 2463,
> sec
Don't know about the sending host, but perhaps the next forwarding
hop should send an ICMPv6 parameter problem message (RFC 2463,
section 3.4) if it gets a packet with Hop Count = 0?
Trouble is, the original source of the IPv6 packet might be different
than the previous hop which made the mistake f
Hi Jari,
> Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> > Hi Alain,
> > Since the hop limit is analogous to TTL in IPv4 the answer should
> > be no. But you will not find the answer in RFC 2460 as this was not
> > covered in RFC 791. This should be covered in the node requirements draft
> > (draft-ietf-ipv6-no
Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Alain,
Since the hop limit is analogous to TTL in IPv4 the answer should
be no. But you will not find the answer in RFC 2460 as this was not
covered in RFC 791. This should be covered in the node requirements draft
(draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-06.txt) that John i
Hi Alain,
Since the hop limit is analogous to TTL in IPv4 the answer should
be no. But you will not find the answer in RFC 2460 as this was not
covered in RFC 791. This should be covered in the node requirements draft
(draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-06.txt) that John is editing. I
ch
I had this question yesterday and I couldn't find an answer in RFC2460:
Is it valid for a host to send a packet with Hop Count set to zero?
- Alain.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Reque
13 matches
Mail list logo
