>>>>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:59:43 +0530, 
>>>>> Syam Madanapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>> > M/O flags indicate the avaialbility of the respective service, so if
>> > a router advertises the M/O flags bits ON, I think we should OFF
>> > them if and only if the same router advertises again to OFF. It is
>> > administartor problem if one advertises with bits ON, and other
>> > router with bits OFF.
>> 
>> How do you propose the host keeps track of which router advertised
>> which bits?  This kind of tracking is not done at the moment.

> True, this requires one needs maintain the M/O flags information per router
> basis. And this leads to implementation complexity. But I think this method
> provides robust implemention. I am not sure how people are managing if
> two different routers on same link advertises two different Link MTU. I
> think the problem could be similar in both the cases.

(I'm responding to this message after reading all the other messages
in this thread)

I'm afraid people may forget that it is administrator's responsibility
to ensure the consistency among RA parameters from multiple routers
in the same single link (see Section 5.6 of RFC2462 - while the RFC
does not explicitly say it's admin's responsibility, but I strongly
believe it's the background intent).  Section 5.6 of RFC2462 also
clearly specifies the behavior when a host happens to receive
inconsistent parameters:

   If inconsistent information is learned different
   sources, the most recently obtained values always have precedence
   over information learned earlier.

An implementation might explore an implementation dependent trick like
combining routers and parameters to mitigate the bad effect of the
admin error.  However, I'd really want to make it outside the scope of
the M/O document.

                                        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
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to