Greg,
> Backward compatability shouldn't really be a problem.
> Hosts which are doing RFC2461 Router Discovery
> will understand RAs with options or bits in them
> indicating solicitation or completeness, but just not
> be able to access the improved function.
>
If a host that understands the new "bit" arrives on a network that has
routers that don't speak the new "bit" but do send abbreviated router
advertisements, then the host will need to take some new unspecified
protocol action to force the routers to send unabbreviated router
advertisements. Otherwise the host will not detect movement as quickly
as it could when arriving on a network with routers that speak the new
"bit". I agree that the other combinations of old and new functionality
are not likely to have problems.
Of course I don't really care for using router advertisements for movement
detection, but if we are going to do it, getting in all the corners is
important.
>
> I don't think it's that hard, but whether it goes into
> RFC2461bis is another matter.
>
I know it isn't hard. However, in my opinion, trying to roll it into
RFC2461bis is on the edge what should be going in what was advertised as
a "bug fix" update.
tim
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
