On Nov 15, 2010, at 11:02, RJ Atkinson wrote: > > I do NOT support this draft, for one quite simple reason: > > ** The assumption of this draft is that there exists some IP option type that > is NEITHER (a) hop-by-hop nor (b) end-to-end in nature. > > I have never heard of such an option, but if someone can provide a concrete > example I'm eager to hear about it.
My expired I-D.woodyatt-ald defines a new ICMPv6 message code for Listener Notification packets. If this draft were passed, then I could revise it to also define a Firewall Alert option, which would be neither hop-by-hop nor destination-oriented, as firewalls are not necessarily either hosts or routers. -- james woodyatt <[email protected]> member of technical staff, communications engineering -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
