Hi greg & Jinmei, Please find the comments inline. > > 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. > > I agree with this, > > In this case, we need to ensure that the router advertisement which > we're basing the decision on has the flags set. > > It may even be worthwhile explicitly stating that management of > flags from multiple routers is not in scope.
Since the idea of the draft is for BCP/Informational on M&O, we shall as well add an appendix section to describe handling of the flags from multiple routers. Regards Radhakrishnan & OLN Rao -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
