Erik Nordmark wrote:
> > Hosts with embedded gateway
> > functions, as described in RFC 1122, section 3.3.4.2 under: "Weak ES
> > Model" also qaulify as routers, and it doesn't matter at all what
> > different routers advertise - they are all still just *routers*.
>
> That wouldn't be consistent
> Hosts with embedded gateway
> functions, as described in RFC 1122, section 3.3.4.2 under: "Weak ES
> Model" also qaulify as routers, and it doesn't matter at all what
> different routers advertise - they are all still just *routers*.
That wouldn't be consistent with the definition of router
in
Thanks Matt,
I'm going to give things a rest for awhile now and let
the dust settle.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving to those who celebrate it.
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matt Crawford wrote:
On Nov 26, 2003, at 4:50 PM, Fred Templin wrote:
139 ICMP Node Information Query [Crawford]
On Nov 26, 2003, at 4:50 PM, Fred Templin wrote:
139 ICMP Node Information Query [Crawford]
140 ICMP Node Information Response [Crawford]
I see that the Router Renumbering option is used by RFC 2894,
but does anyone know if the other options are used anywher
Responding one final time to my own post, I think we should forget
this business about hijacking and just use Matt's document instead:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups-10.txt
It looks mature, well fleshed out, and has some nice features
like references to i
Fred Templin wrote:
The two ways I see to do this are to either specify a new IPv6 ND option
(call it a "Type II Router Solicitation" for lack of a better name) or
to add
bits to the existing IPv6 Router Soliciation message (e.g., in the
"Reserved"
field) that indicate the type of information
Pekka,
I meant only what I said - nodes should be able to selectively solicit
at least two different classes of information from routers. (Perhaps
there will be even more classes of information in the future; I
don't know).
Some routers might advertise only prefix/autoconfig information,
so they m
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Fred Templin wrote:
> However, the message that must not be lost in the terminology shuffle
> is that it very much *does* matter that nodes be able to selectively
> solicit at least two different classes of information from routers:
>
> 1) Classical prefix/autoconfig informa
As I said in my last message, my goal was to get a message out and
not push new terminology. I agree with Pekka that it doesn't matter at
all whether a router has just one interface or hundreds; it is still a
router.
(In fact, this is nearly the exact response I received when I asked a
related
q
