not push new terminology. I agree with Pekka that it doesn't matter at
all whether a router has just one interface or hundreds; it is still a router.
(In fact, this is nearly the exact response I received when I asked a related
question during an IPv6 session at IETF 58.) Hosts with embedded gateway
functions, as described in RFC 1122, section 3.3.4.2 under: "Weak ES
Model" also qaulify as routers, and it doesn't matter at all what
different routers advertise - they are all still just *routers*.
However, the message that must not be lost in the terminology shuffle is that it very much *does* matter that nodes be able to selectively solicit at least two different classes of information from routers:
1) Classical prefix/autoconfig information as specified in RFC 2461
2) Route Information Options as specified in:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-02.txt
The two ways I see to do this are to either specify a new IPv6 ND option
(call it a "Type II Router Solicitation" for lack of a better name) or to add
bits to the existing IPv6 Router Soliciation message (e.g., in the "Reserved"
field) that indicate the type of information being solicited.
What does the wg feel is the best way to move forward with this?
Thanks - Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pekka Savola wrote:
I agree with this view, it's no use trying to overload two different meanings for a router depending on capitalization.
I don't think it matters at all whether a router has just one interface or many, or what it advertises or not, or whether it pretends to be a host on one interface, or originates UDP/TCP packets, or whatever. It's still a router.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
