Contents

Talk:ICMPv6

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ICMPv6 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Networking Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This page is for discussion of the article. It is not for dumping a massive (500 kB) alternative version of it. -- RHaworth 18:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 November 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Internet Control Message Protocol for IPv6toICMPv6. The result of the discussion was moved.

Aren't the types #130 to #132 obsolete ? They belong to an obsoleted version of the specs (RFC 1885), so I guess they are (and the article should be edited consequently). Also, there seems to exist some more ICMPv6 message types (see here for instance), and it may be a good thing to update the article in that way (my IPv6 knowledge isn't big enough for me to do it). 83.202.8.19 (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are still described in RFC 2710 which is not obsolete. Multicast Listener Discovery indicates that type 143 is used. Further research is needed to straighten this out. ~Kvng (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1885.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentencesorphrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators willbeblocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. -- — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section "checksum" seems preplexing, at least to me. I had a hard time figuring out how "1's complement summation" is performed. Though I know what 1's complement is, "1's complement summation" is new to me. And there is no article for it on Wikipedia, it there? I did not get the correct until I found another webpage explainning "1's complement summation".

Chen9007 (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some improvements. Please note WP:NOTHOWTO. The cited standards give detailed how-to instructions for this. ~Kvng (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Control Message Protocol for IPv6 → ICMPv6 – Per WP:COMMONNAME MOS:ACROTITLE. On Google Ngram, there isn't a single hit for the current title, but a lot for ICMPv6. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the current title is found only a couple places on Wikipedia. Most of the incoming links to the current title are a piped link in {{Internet protocol suite}}. ICMPv6 is where the action is. ~Kvng (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is bad news, and should be reversed. Protocol articles on Wikipedia should not use abbreviations for titles, no matter what is used in the field. The vast majority of technical articles that would show up by Google or anyone would likely use acronyms or abbreviations, but this is an general purpose encyclopedia. "Using common names" should be qualified to what a general audience understands and not specialists. ICMPv6 is NOT a commonly recognized name, you cannot ask a digital database/search engine for what the meaning of that is. Ask your mother what it refers to. At least with the full title they will send you to the Internet. The title doesn't have to include "for", it could just be Internet Control Message Protocol version 6 kbrose (talk) 21:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbrose "Protocol articles on Wikipedia should not use abbreviations for titles" is based on what Wikipedia policy? We have MOS:ACROTITLE, which says "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject". That is the case here. I don't see any exception for protocols that you mention. "Ask your mother" is not relevant here either, because the policy is relevant to "readers somewhat familiar with the subject". And if people want to learn what it stands for, they have the first sentence of the article anyway. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kbrose removed some oddly formatted information. I'm leaving a copy here for anyone interested in restoring it with better formatting.

• 
  Destination Unreachable Message (Type=1)
• 
  Packet Too Big Message (Type=2)
• 
  ICMPv6 Time Exceeded Message (Type=3)
• 
  Parameter Problem Message (Type=4)
• 
  Echo Request Message (Type=128)
• 
  Echo Reply Message (Type=129)
• 
  Router Solicitation Message (Type=133)
• 
  Router Advertisement Message (Type 134)
• 
  Neighbor Solicitation Message (Type 135)
• 
  Neighbor Advertisement Message (Type 136)
• 
  Redirect Message (Type 137)

~Kvng (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These have been restoredbyPhotographyEdits ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flags in the "Neighboor Advertisement Message" are mixed with the "Router Advertisement Message" (see the Current hop limit). There are also problem with the cell size vs bit size of the flags. PS: I don't know how to correct table sorry. 82.124.177.69 (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to remove the incorrect information. The columns in question are refusing to respond to manual width settings. Not sure why. Phatom87 ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]