On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 06:16:05PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote: > > I'm even not sure if the "multi-link subnet" or "ND-proxy" scenarios > is ever related to the point I described...as far as I know, the host > can still see router advertisements from a "router" in the sense of > RFC2462 (or rfc2462bis), which is just located in a different link > from the host's link. On the other hand, I was talking about the case > where the host does not see any router advertisements, whether via the > directly attached link or from a separate link via a "proxy" while > there is still a node that can forward any kinds of IPv6 packets.
[First, I think all your proposed changes are very good!] The implication of the dhc discussion was that if the only way for a node to learn its/a default router should be via receipt of an RA, and not via any stateful protocol. The same discussion also suggested the same single solution for discovery of on-link prefixes (i.e. these should be available only via RAs and not via stateful protocols). These have implications for your forwarding node on a link with no RA. This issue needs to be clarified/documented somewhere. I'm not sure the ND proxy document is that place... Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
