Re: RAO for IPv4

Thomas Narten <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.int,gmane.ietf.nsis
Message-ID <[email protected]>
>From the draft:

> 4.2.  IANA Considerations for IPv6 Router Alert Option Values
> 
>    The registry for IPv6 Router Alert Option Values should continue to
>    be maintained as specified in [RFC2711].  However, when a new
>    allocation is made in this registry an identical registration MUST be
>    made in the IPv4 Router Alert Option Values registry, or that value
>    MUST be reserved.  In the case that it is reserved rather than
>    allocated, the registry entry should say "Reserved (not to be
>    allocated) - Note: This value is allocated in the IPv4 Router Alert
>    Options registry".


Why exactly is it necessary to have the IPv4 and IPv6 number space be
consistent? What is the technical requirement/benefit here?

My own sense is that this would be "nice to have", but it is certainly
not required, and I don't see that having the numbering space be strictly
synchronized as providing compelling technical benefit.

What am I missing?

Thomas
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.