On 3/31/2015 5:53 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote: > David, > > > > One way to address this problem would be to remove Section 2.2 entirely. > Since the syntax and semantics of the Protocol Type field is unchanged > from RFC 2784, the omission of Section 2.2 doesn’t change the meaning of > the draft at all.
Yes, but it might still be useful to point out that IPv6 (unfortunately, and undermining the whole point of the IP version number) uses a different ethertype than IPv4. (this is what happens when we let temporary hardware optimizations influence long-term protocol design) Joe _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
