[New subject since this is a separate issue. How do we get an issue
number allocated?]
> > 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)
Minor issue: RFC 2461 doesn't talk about exchanging routing information
now so for consistency we shouldn't introduce that in only one place.
Either we carefully introduce it where needed, or we don't introduce it at
all.
Major issue: RFC 2461 actually says that in 6.2.2:
- enabling IP forwarding capability (i.e., changing the system
from being a host to being a router), when the interface's
AdvSendAdvertisements flag is TRUE.
This is not how I recall the intent when we wrote the spec. But RFC 2461
is consistent on this point; a router has AdvSendAdvertisements set.
If it doesn't want to be a default router the RAs would
have a router lifetime of zero.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
