here is another issue.
when a router includes a Prefix Information Option (section 4.6.2 of RFC 2461) in the Router Advertisement, and if the router has an address configured from that prefix, I suggest including the router's address in the 'Prefix' field. not just the prefix. the Prefix Length field will still indicate the prefix length and hosts should be able to figure out the prefix.
we have had problems when two different interfaces of a router use the same link local address. some host implementations just check the source address and assume that the current router is still reachable even when they move between links attached to the two interfaces on the router.
we came across this issue at Connectathon 2002. the following URL has some discussion on it
http://www.piuha.net/~jarkko/publications/mipv6/issues/issue278.txt
Mobile IPv6 already defines a Modified Prefix Information option where the router's address is present in the prefix field. I would like to see it in the Neighbor Discovery specification itself. having the global unicast address in the prefix field will help in movement detection.
Vijay
Soliman Hesham wrote:
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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
