Folks, This is what I found initially. Please let us know if there are any issues that should be added to the list.
Please note that some of these issues might not necessarily be addressed in this revision if they require non-backward compatible changes. The main requirement here is to be backward compatible with our changes. If you wish to express opinions, questions or suggestions please start a separate thread with the issue's header in the subject field. Thanks, Hesham Issue 1: Mixed Host/Router behaviour by Pekka Savola, May 2001 http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/lists/ipng/200105/msg00068.html Erik Nordmark made a comment that the text could be clearer: http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/lists/ipng/200105/msg00077.html Issue 2: Check against the case of preferred lifetime > valid lifetime by jinmei, Dec 2002 http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/ipng/msg07250.html This thread contained a possible updates on the router behavior of sending router advertisements: http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/ipng/msg07402.html Issue 3: On-link assumptions in 2461 considered harmful. This issue was raised by Alain and documented in: draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption-00.txt draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault-00.txt Also see related issue in section 2.4 of: http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/ipv6/draft-jinchoi-ipv6-cRA-00.txt Issue 4: Advertisement lifetime issues raised by Pete Barany Issue 5: Clarifying the use of the M and O flags (raised by Rolf and others during V6ops meeting in San Francisco) Issue 6: The prefix length field in the prefix option and its consistency with the fixed prefix size (64 bits) in RFC 3513. SEND issues: Issue 7: All the security discussions (e.g. assuming that AH or ESP can be added to the ND messages) will need to be put in the context of SEND. Issue 8: Security considerations section needs to consider issues in: draft-ietf-send-psreq-04 Issue 9: The chicken and egg problem for ND security using IKE as specified in: draft-arkko-icmpv6-ike-effects-02 and manual SAs issues addressed in: draft-arkko-manual-icmpv6-sas-02 MIP issues: Issue 10: Reducing MIN_DELAY_BETWEEN_RAS from 3 seconds to 50 ms as specified in MIPv6 (many emails on the MIP mailing list in October and November 2002) Issue 11: Eliminating the random delays required before sending an RS when a mobile node does a handover to a new link. The random delay imposed by 2461 significantly increases the movement detection time for mobile nodes Issue 12: Eliminating the random delays required in 2461 when a router sends a solicited RA. See : draft-mkhalil-ipv6-fastra-04.txt Issue 13: Impacts of the omission of a prefix option. section 2.2 in : http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/ipv6/draft-jinchoi-ipv6-cRA-00.txt describes the impacts of omitting a prefix option from an RA on movement detection for mobile nodes. RFC 2461 does not require options to be present in every RA. Issue 14: Link ids required to aid with movement detection. see: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pentland-mobileip-linkid-00.txt Finally, I recall (but not clearly) some discussions on the clarity of 2461 when it comes to multihomed hosts. But I haven't managed to find the relevant thread(s) in the archive. So if you have an issue to add please let me know. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------