> I'm not sure if we need to take a particular action for this in > rfc2462bis, but you may want to add a note like this in Section 5.5.2: > > Note that it is possible that there is no router on the link in this > sense but is a node that has the ability to forward packets. In > this case, hosts must be manually configured about the forwarding > node's address to be able to send packets off-link, since sending > router advertisements is the only mechanism to configure the default > router's address automatically. > > We might add a further notice on the suggested configuration: > > Thus, a node that has the ability of forwarding should be configured > to send router advertisements unless there is a strong reason to not > do so. > > Though I personally think the last sentence is too much in the scope > of rfc2462bis. But I can live with either > > 1. do nothing on this in rfc2462bis, > 2. add the above note without the "further" notice, or > 3. add the above note with the "further" notice I understand your reservations regarding the scope of the sentence, but w.r.t. to the "default router issue" I think that especially the "further notice" section will relieve us of some pain because it clarifies that we really do want forwarding nodes to send RAs in the majority of cases. So I would vote for 3.. However, we could try to clarify this issue in another document (something like a BCP?), if we feel that it's out of scope for 2462bis.
> Are you happy with the clarification (with or without the "further" > notice")? What do others think? Yes, the clarification looks very good and I really think that it is necessary. I'm curious to hear the others' opinions where it should be placed (in 2462bis or someplace else). Christian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
