On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 10:27:48AM -0400, Vladislav Yasevich wrote:
> [Nick Moore wrote:]
>
> > A NA with S=0,O=0 for a REACHABLE entry will have no effect on the
> > entry according to the Appendix C state machine, and these are the
> > only NAs which the ON will sent to All Nodes which Tentative. 
> > Admittedly an NA with S=1,O=0 will reset a REACHABLE entry to STALE,
> > but why is the correspondent soliciting for a REACHABLE entry?
> > (Or have I missed something elsewhere?)
> 
> Hmm.  Here is a quote from rfc 2461, section 7.2.5:
>     "If the target's Neighbor Cache entry is in any state other than
>      INCOMPLETE when the advertisement is received, processing becomes
>      quite a bit more complex.  If the Override flag is clear and the
>      supplied link-layer address differs from that in the cache, then one
>      of two actions takes place: if the state of the entry is REACHABLE,
>      set it to STALE, but do not update the entry in any other way;
>      otherwise, the received advertisement should be ignored and MUST NOT
>      update the cache."

Ah, I see what you mean. RFC 2461 contradicts itself then, since
Appendix C states:

| !INCOMPLETE     NA, Solicited=1,        Record link-layer     REACHABLE
|                 Override=1              address (if
|                                         different).
| 
| !INCOMPLETE     NA, Solicited=0,        -                     unchanged
|                 Override=0
| 
| !INCOMPLETE     NA, Solicited=0,        -                     unchanged
|                 Override=1
|                 Same link-layer
|                 address as cached.
| 
| !INCOMPLETE     NA, Solicited=0,        Record link-layer     STALE
|                 Override=1              address.
|                 Different link-layer
|                 address than cached.

Now, I understand that the main text would generally trump a
mere Appendix, but the appendix rules seem to me to make more
sense. My draft is based on the Appendix C rules so yes, I'd
have to rethink a few things based on 7.2.5.

Would one of the RFC2461 authors like to comment?

-----Nick
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to