At 09:27 AM 11/20/2003 -0500, Soliman Hesham wrote:
> I strongly suggest the use of "Nodes" (unqualified) in the text > about the 'O' bit:
=> To be clear, I was suggesting substitusting "Nodes (acting as hosts)". I'm not sure if you're replying to my comment or in general.
Thanks for the clarification; I don't think I precisely understood your substitution.
And, now that I think about the problem a little more carefully, esp. after reading the text you cite below from RFC 2461 (thanks for looking up the reference), I've convinced myself the problem is a little more complicated than I thought at first glance.
In the case of routers, I think the 'M' and 'O' bits should be used conditionally based on configuration in the router. That is, I can imagine situations in which an operator would want to control the behavior of several routers on a link through the 'M' and 'O' bits, while in other situations an operator would want to configure each router manually, ignoring the 'M' and 'O' bits...
> However, there is some question about any discussion of "nodes" and > RAs, as there may be text in RFC 2461 (I'm working from > memory, here, which > in my case is a remarkably unreliable service; I hope > someone more familiar > with RFC 2461 can confirm or deny) that allows or requires > routers to ignore RAs.
=> In 6.2.7 :
Routers SHOULD inspect valid Router Advertisements sent by other routers and verify that the routers are advertising consistent information on a link. Detected inconsistencies indicate that one or more routers might be misconfigured and SHOULD be logged to system or network management. The minimum set of information to check includes:
- Cur Hop Limit values (except for the unspecified value of zero).
- Values of the M or O flags.
- Reachable Time values (except for the unspecified value of zero).
Whether that means routers can also act upon the information they receive is of course a separate issue. But at least it is clear that routers are not required to automatically drop RAs.
Hesham
> > - Ralph > > At 09:06 AM 11/20/2003 -0500, Soliman Hesham wrote: > > > > > > Is there a reason to differentiate between nodes acting as > > > hosts here, but > > > not in the paragraph describing the behavior in response to > > > the 'M' bit? > > > >=> In general, unless previously discussed and rejected for some > >reason, I'd globally: s/Nodes (acting as hosts)/host > > > >It's a bit clumsy to read as it is. > > > >Hesham > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
