[moved this to ipv6 list] Nick,
Thanks, I'll add this to the list. Hesham > -----Original Message----- > From: Nick 'Sharkey' Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 3:28 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Soliman Hesham > Subject: Re: RFC 2461- issue list > > > On 2003-10-22, Soliman Hesham wrote: > > > > This is what I found initially. Please let us know if > > there are any issues that should be added to the list. > > G'day Hesham, > > I don't think this is on your list (cut-n-paste from > the opti-dad draft): > > | An NA with O=0,S=0 and no LLAO may [Note 1], however cause > | the NC entry to be set to STALE, causing NUD to be > | performed on the address. > | > | [Note 1] RFC 2461 is unclear on this, with [RFC2461 > 7.2.5] specifying > | "the advertisement prompts future Neighbour Unreachability > | Detection [...] by changing the state in the cache entry" > | whereas [RFC2461 Appendix C] specifies the state as > "unchanged". > | Many arguments have been made on the list (see > | <ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/mail-archive/ipng.199912>) | for one interpretation or the other. For the purposes of this | draft, I have assumed that either behaviour is possible. ... but maybe this should be clarified. cheers, -----Nick -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
