(Catching up some old messages...sorry for the delayed response.)
>>>>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 00:52:23 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> [New subject since this is a separate issue. How do we get an issue
> number allocated?]
As far as I know, only the main editor (as well as the site
administrators of course) can create a new issue. In this case,
you'll need to ask Hesham to create a new one.
>> > 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.
I concur. Actually, I just expressed what I'd envision as a router,
and did not intend to recommend rfc2461bis to have the exact wording.
I think it makes sense to not introduce "routing exchange" 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.
That's right, so I'm not sure how this can be a new issue. Do you
want additional clarification on this in rfc2461bis?
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
