Hi Bob/ Jukka, We at IPInfusion support RSVP for IPv6. Our implementation will however not be affected by the fix mentioned below.
Thanks, Vishwas On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FYI > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "Jukka MJ Manner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: May 14, 2008 3:51:08 PM GMT+02:00 >> To: Transport Area WG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Internet Area <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> Subject: [Int-area] RSVP for IPv6 implementors: your use of RAO >> value 3 >> >> >> Hi, >> >> We are in the middle of fixing the IP Router Alert Option registry and >> allocations, and one issue affects the current RSVP implementations. >> >> There are two values that indicate end-to-end RSVP: >> "1" Datagram contains RSVP message [RFC2711] >> "3" RSVP Aggregation Level 0 [RFC3175] >> >> We are currently proposing that value "3" should be removed from >> use, and >> reserved (not to be allocated to any protocol). Thus, value "1" >> should be >> used to indicate end-to-end RSVP. >> >> The question is: who have RSVP implementations for IPv6, and would >> this >> change break something? >> >> Regards, >> Jukka >> _______________________________________________ >> Int-area mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
