Hi Michael, > I don't know if this has been mentioned, but > regardless of whether implementation of RO for > CN's is a MUST/SHOULD, there should be text in the > draft that "RO MUST have a means to be > administratively disabled on the CN."
I agree with you. I do think that additional work will be needed to detail how RO is used, if there is a need for protocol negotiation, etc. I think that the important thing is to have a strong statement of support for implementing RO. How RO is used probably needs some real deployment experience, etc. I think that RO needs to be implemented, but its use is probably still open to local control, etc. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
