On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Jari/John, That sounds fine but it is not just RFC 2460 that needs to be updated but perhaps many others. Off the top of my head I know that RFC3493 needs to be updated since the IPV6_UNICAST_HOPS socket option now accepts 0 as a valid hop count. I really do not understand what a hop count of 0 implies and why we should bother updating the RFCs.
Regards Suresh >Hi Jari, > >> Suresh Krishnan wrote: >> > Hi Alain, >> > Since the hop limit is analogous to TTL in IPv4 the answer should >> > be no. But you will not find the answer in RFC 2460 as this was not >> > covered in RFC 791. This should be covered in the node requirements draft >> > (draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-06.txt) that John is editing. I >> > checked the draft but it did not have a section regarding this(analogous >> > to RFC 1122 section 3.2.1.7). Maybe this can be added to that draft. I am >> > curious as to why you would want to do that though. >> >> I think we have agreed now that the node requirements document is >> not a place to list all updates and deficiencies of existing RFCs -- >> those existing RFCs should be updated instead. > >I agree. > >John > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
