On Fri, 04 Oct 2019 08:20:22 +0900, Masataka Ohta said: > As for requirements for IPv6 routers, how do you think about the > following requirement by rfc4443?
44443 Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet Protocol
Version 6 (IPv6) Specification. A. Conta, S. Deering, M. Gupta, Ed..
March 2006. (Format: TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC2463) (Updates
RFC2780) (Updated by RFC4884) (Also STD0089) (Status: INTERNET
STANDARD) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC4443)
> rfc1812 says:
1812 Requirements for IP Version 4 Routers. F. Baker, Ed.. June 1995.
(Format: TXT, HTML) (Obsoletes RFC1716, RFC1009) (Updated by
RFC2644, RFC6633) (Status: PROPOSED STANDARD) (DOI:
10.17487/RFC1812)
I suppose you never considered that in the 11 years intervening, we decided
that maybe things should be done differently.
> IPv6 specification is fatally broken in various ways.
Oddly enough, it doesn't seem to be fatally broken from where I am, or
from where Google is, or from where Facebook is, or from where most
of the cellphone companies are.
You must have a different definition of "fatally broken" than the rest of us.
pgpBf75WZkmZ4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
