On 22 Jan 2024, at 15:40, Warren Kumari wrote:
> So, if this already works, why are we writing a document?!
I wandered into that document expecting to find an heretical inference that
control messages were not important for some reason which would have made me a
bit animated, but as it turns o
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 2:23 PM Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:08 PM, Herbie Robinson <
> herbie.robin...@stratus.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the ICMP problem needs to be addressed. Perhaps with an IPv4
>> option to embed the identity of the router (IPv6 address or some o
Warren Kumari wrote:
> This isn't yet another "let's rewrite part of the header and override
> some bits", nor some new protocol / tunneling thing. It simply notes
> that routers only need to determine the outgoing interface (and
> usually MAC address) for a packet, and so it's perfectly acceptabl
The draft seems entirely too focused on the guts of the per-packet
routing decision. This misses the system-wide implications of the
proposal.
The draft treats IPv4 and IPv6 as symmetric and equal, such that you
could route packets for either or both, over a network that support just
one.
So I s
Thanks for writing this down!
Wonder what it would take for a host to do router discovery using a different
AF.
Achieving the equivalent of "ip route add 0.0.0.0/0 via inet6 fe80::1 dev eth0”
O.
> On 22 Jan 2024, at 15:39, Warren Kumari wrote:
>
> Hi there all,
>
> I discovered that I'd som
