> Host nodes should not be doing this? We did not put this in > ND for very > good reason. We want to reduce what Hosts no about prefixes > and leave to > the stateless and stateful. Why do we want to put this into > HOsts. What > is the reason. That is not below.
=> I should have described the scenario a bit better. This is a case where hosts need to know whether they have changed links or not. The only way we know that today is through the contents of the RA. Hosts today use the prefixes advertised (or not) as an input to the movement detection algorithm amongst other things. There are different flavours of movement detection depending on how conservative an implementor wants to be. But in all those flavours, the prefix option (or absence of) may well trigger the algorithm. I don't have a strong opinion on whether this should go into 2461bis or not. But I do think that there is a problem. Another consideration is how _real_ this problem is. Does anyone know of a router implementation that sometimes does not advertise all options to save BW ? > What problem is this addition trying to fix or solve? > > I have read the draft below and believe the core issue is resolved. > What prefixes are supplied is in the system not the host or > why not just > use DHCPv6? => DHCPv6 can be used, but in order to trigger DHCPv6 a host needs to know that it has changed links. Otherwise it will be triggered unnecessarily. I think we cannot and must not overrule the essential > meaning of the A and M bits. => Agreed. We won't do that. > > In fact I suggest in additon to each member of this list a problem > statement be stated for each change to 2461. => I'll try to cover that briefly in a "background" section when I send a suggestion to resolve an issue. Hesham -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
