Thanks for the responses. But if RFC3542 is not updated, won't this adversely affect the portability of applications that references these new codes? If implementers define their own constant names for these codes in their icmp6.h files, then you may not be able to compile the source of the same application on different platforms. Thanks,
Kristine Adamson
IBM z/OS Communications Server: TCP/IP Development
Internet e-mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
JINMEI Tatuya wrote on 03/31/2005 09:49:36 PM:
> >>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 06:13:37 -0700,
> >>>>> Kristine Adamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Draft draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-06.txt adds 3 new ICMPv6 codes to the
> > Destination Unreachable type. RFC3542, Advanced Sockets Application
> > Program Interface (API) for IPv6, provides the programming definitions for
> > the ICMPv6 types/codes. RFC3542 already defines one of the new codes:
> > #define ICMP6_DST_UNREACH_BEYONDSCOPE 2 /* beyond scope of source address
> > */
> > Will RFC3542 be updated to include the definitions for the additional 2
> > new codes:
> > 5 - source address failed ingress/egress policy
> > 6 - reject route to destination
> Perhaps yes, although I think introducing just two new ICMPv6 types
> doesn't require a revision of RFC3542. Someday, when we have enough
> possible updates for the API, a new version will include the new
> ICMPv6 types.
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> Communication Platform Lab.
> Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email protected]
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
