|
Thanks for the quick reply. The Router Alert Option
(RFC 2711) is dated October 1999. It says "This
memo describes a new IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Option type ", so the Router Alert is
designed for the H-B-H Extension header.
----------------------------------------------------
John
Spence, CCSI, CCNA, CISSP
Native6, Inc.
IPv6 Training and
Consulting
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(wk)
206-682-0275
www.native6.com
----------------------------------------------------
one of them sounds like it is redundant. I think the Router Alert
predated the HBH header...
On Nov 1, 2005, at 6:04 PM, John Spence wrote:
Hello;
If the H-B-H
extension header means "all intermediate nodes must look in here for options
to process", why is the "Router Alert" option needed? As I read the text of
the two RFCs, the Router Alert Option is redundant - just including a H-B-H
header means "intermediate nodes must look at this packet even if it is not
addressed to them", which seems to be the same meaning as Router
Alert.
I must be
missing something. Can someone provide a quick answer, or a pointer to the
answer so I can research it myself?
Thanks very
much.
John
Spence
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already
tomorrow in Australia." (Charles Schulz )
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
