> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 08:50:38 -0500,
> James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> This is more than strictly required for interoperability.
> I think that's the key point. It's very important to make sure that
> the things marked as "MUST" or "MUST NOT" are actually requirements
> for i
Pekka Savola writes:
> This is more than strictly required for interoperability.
I think that's the key point. It's very important to make sure that
the things marked as "MUST" or "MUST NOT" are actually requirements
for interoperability or anticipated development, and not just needless
stricture
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Brian Haberman wrote:
Given that 2461 (and 2461bis) are DS, I would find it very disturbing if
implementers did not treat the entire document as normative. In order
to be compliant with a spec (any spec), an implementation MUST adhere to
all aspects including protocol consta
Good afternoon,
>From: Hesham Soliman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2007/01/04 Thu AM 01:24:59 CST
>To: 'Brian Haberman' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
'Pekka Savola' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
>Subject: RE: RFC2461(bis): norma
> => I agree with this. Pekka himself mentioned that this is
> not a compliant behviour according to 2461. A contant is a
> *contant*, which means it doesn't change :)
=> I obviously meant constant :)
Hesham
> Variables are also given max and min values, which by the
> english mean
Catching up on email..
> Pekka Savola wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Speaking of RFC 2461(bis), some time ago I noticed the following
> > behaviour with a popular router implementation (a support
> case is open
> > on this): for forwarded packets, it takes up to 24 hours (in recent
> > software
On 2006-12-28 15:04, Brian Haberman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Pekka Savola wrote:
Hi,
Speaking of RFC 2461(bis), some time ago I noticed the following
behaviour with a popular router implementation (a support case is open
on this): for forwarded packets, it takes u
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Pekka Savola wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Speaking of RFC 2461(bis), some time ago I noticed the following
> behaviour with a popular router implementation (a support case is open
> on this): for forwarded packets, it takes up to 24 hours (in recent
> software
Hi,
Speaking of RFC 2461(bis), some time ago I noticed the following
behaviour with a popular router implementation (a support case is open
on this): for forwarded packets, it takes up to 24 hours (in recent
software versions, up to 20 minutes) for the hardware forwarding to
notice that an IP
