On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Fred Templin wrote: > 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.
I do not see the issue you describe. You can solicit exactly this kind of information from any node you wish, right? Naturally, the hosts won't answer; some routers might not either (e.g., if they aren't configured to advertise such information) -- but that's not really relevant -- anyone can elect to be silent if they wish! Are you suggesting that all routers be somehow "forced" to return this kind of information (when asked explicitly in some defined manner) whether they advertise it or not? That probably would not fly. Or are you suggesting that routers should be able to advertise (or tell, when asked explicitly) about the information they know about prefixes/autoconfig/routes, without the hosts implying they would act as a default router as well? Not sure I'd see a point for something like that.. If you meant something else, I didn't understand .. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
