If that's the only implication, I'm not sure it's worth
adding. It's a bit worrisome for future interoperability
(i.e. we shouldn't use this to add flags which will cause
failures if they are ignored).
Brian
On 2007-06-22 16:02, Brian Haberman wrote:
I would say that it if a node does not support this new option, it will
probably not support any new functionality using the extended bit field.
I am rather neutral on whether adding such text is necessary.
Regards,
Brian
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Sorry to be slightly late...
I note that 2461bis says that unrecognized options MUST
be ignored. So that means that back-level implementations
will ignore any flag bits sent with this new option. Does
that have any side-effects that should be noted?
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
