>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 01:04:23 -0700 (PDT), >>>>> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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. If the "details" is limited to non-ND issues like forwarding stuff, I can live with this compromise. (I still prefer the "simplest" way, but I also admit the opinions may vary on this.) However, I still want to have detailed clarifications on ND-related implications on this, including the ones I pointed out in a separate message: http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg02912.html Otherwise, the implementors (including myself!) will soon wonder how we should implement this, and I believe it's irresponsible for spec writers to just say "it's out of scope of this doc" if they dare to open Pandora's box. BTW: if we take this compromise, do you also want to take similar approach in rfc2462bis? JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
