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