Ack to Itojun and I am not clear we need to do this at all or add text. /jim
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino > Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 5:37 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [psg.com #245] Mixed host/router behavior > > > How about a compromise that makes it clear that > > - isRouter and all other ND configuration and state is per > interface > > thus there is nothing in the specification which prevents a node > > being a host on some interfaces and a router on other interfaces. > > The behavior of such nodes on a particular interface is specified > > in this document. > > - the details of how such nodes work across interfaces > i.e. how the node > > determines which interfaces forward packets between each > other etc > > are out of scope for the document. > > i do not like this way. i would like to put: > - a node is either a host or a router. it is a > per-host property, > not per-interface property. "advertising interface" > has nothing > to do with host/router (as jinmei described) > - (if really necessary) in Appendix, talk about mixed mode node, > and benefits/caveats/pitfalls in doing so. even if > we do not write > it up, vendors will do it anyways so my preference is > not to mention > mixed mode at all. > > itojun > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
