Excellent 👌🏻 I’ll update the document accordingly.A bientôt;PascalLe 20 nov. 2024 à 09:46, Esko Dijk a écrit :
Hi Pascal,
> Would you prefer a different wording ?
Yes I would, what about the below?
OLD:
because the RIO is explicitly not intended to serve in routing, and
NEW:
because
Hi Pascal,
> Would you prefer a different wording ?
Yes I would, what about the below?
OLD:
because the RIO is explicitly not intended to serve in routing, and
NEW:
because the RIO is not intended to be sent by a host or consumed by a router as
input to its routing protocol,
Esko
From: Pascal
Hello Esko The RIO is not supported to be used as a routing protocol. It the preference should not be a metric. It is meant to be issued by routers and consumed by hosts type C for their local routing table. This is as opposed to the prefix registration that consumed by routers and explicitly carri
Thanks for adding these clarifications.
One sentence part I don't really understand: "because the RIO is explicitly not
intended to serve in routing,"
Do you mean here that the RIO (being inside an RA) is intended to be sent by an
IPv6 router; while the thing you're looking for is a way for an
