Going back to the other points: >>>>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 03:50:51 -0400, >>>>> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > Whether or not we concentrate on the "simple" case, I think it >> > makes sense to state that a non-advertising interface is still >> > one that behaves as a router e.g. the R-bit in the NA should be set >> > since another router might redirect hosts to use the >> router that doesn't >> > advertise itself. >> >> Hmm, I agree. Let me rephrase this point then: >> >> - if we concentrate on the "simple" cases, then we should >> emphasize in >> rfc2461bis that even if an interface is not an advertising >> interface >> the node still acts as a router on that interface (e.g., it can >> forward from/to that interface, exchange routing >> information on that >> interface, set the R-bit in NAs, etc) > => Which is stated today by virtue of having two separate flags to indicate > whether "routing" is on and whether "advertising" is on. Yes, we can understand this if we read the spec very carefully, but, as I pointed out in a separate message, apparently this is not very clear and there was actually confusion on this (excuse me referring to the same multiple times, but see http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg02912.html as an example of the confusion). Thus, I'd like rfc2462bis to have more explicit note on this point. >> - if we allow the mixed behavior, then we should emphasize in >> rfc2461bis that even if a "router-behavior" interface is not an >> advertising interface, the node still acts as a router on that >> interface. > => Are there missing flags in order to allow this or are you suggesting > more text. If the latter, I can handle that. I'm suggesting more text. I can contribute it once we have agreed on the more fundamental issue of whether we should allow the "mixed" behavior in the first place in rfc2461bis. (Or, if you want to cook the text by yourself, that's also fine) 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
