Subject: [Mip6] [issue55] Request to add BIGENIDAN LITTLE_ENDIAN by yoshfuji

From: Samita <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 03:10:55 +0000

New submission from Samita <[email-masked]>:

>      #define  MIP6_PA_FLAG_MANAGED    0x8000
>      #define  MIP6_PA_FLAG_OTHER      0x4000
> 
> Because MIP6_PA_FLAG_MANAGED and/or MIP6_PA_FLAG_OTHER are used
> for 16-bit-wide field (mip6_pa_flags_reserved), I believe that
> their definitions should be fixed as follows:

We have added comments on top of these defines :

  /* Mobile Prefix Advertisement Flags in network-byte order */
        #define  MIP6_PA_FLAG_MANAGED    0x8000
        #define  MIP6_PA_FLAG_OTHER      0x4000

 This is matched with the rest of the definitions. Is this OK?

----------
category: Technical
draft: draft-ietf-mip6-mipext-advapi
messages: 184
nosy: samita
priority: May fix
status: Text proposed
title: Request to add BIGENIDAN LITTLE_ENDIAN by yoshfuji

_________________________________________________
Mip6 issue tracker <[email-masked]>
<http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/mip6/issue55>
_________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6