IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-flags-option-00.txt>

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Fri, 22 June 2007 14:05 UTC

Return-path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I1jlf-000642-S1; Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:05:43 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I1jjn-0001Xn-7s for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:03:47 -0400
Received: from pilot.jhuapl.edu ([128.244.198.200] helo=jhuapl.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I1jiL-0006Y3-8M for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:02:18 -0400
Received: from ([128.244.206.105]) by pilot.jhuapl.edu with ESMTP id 5502123.35631650; Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:02:01 -0400
Message-ID: <467BD659.1040708@innovationslab.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:02:01 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Macintosh/20070509)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
References: <B6BCFDE9-8DFD-420E-B146-C2B80C41BA84@nokia.com> <467BC3EF.4050107@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <467BC3EF.4050107@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:05:40 -0400
Cc: IPv6 WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, bob.hinden@nokia.com
Subject: Re: IPv6 WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-flags-option-00.txt>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

I would say that it if a node does not support this new option, it will
probably not support any new functionality using the extended bit field.
 I am rather neutral on whether adding such text is necessary.

Regards,
Brian


Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Sorry to be slightly late...
> 
> I note that 2461bis says that unrecognized options MUST
> be ignored. So that means that back-level implementations
> will ignore any flag bits sent with this new option. Does
> that have any side-effects that should be noted?
> 
>     Brian
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email