>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:39:15 -0800 (PST),
>>>>> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> - a time that decrements in real time,
>> that is, one that will result in a
>> Lifetime of zero at the specified
>> time in the future, or
>>
>> - a fixed time that stays the same in
>> consecutive advertisements.
>>
>> ==> AFAIK, the first option has not been implemented; I've at least not seen
>> in done. Therefore unless someone shows that there are two implementations
>> of this, this must be removed. (The same for AdvPreferredLifetime, and a bit
>> in section 6.2.7.)
> FWIW This is implemented in Solaris 8 and later.
> I don't know if there is an second independent implementation though.
KAME/BSD also implements the former type of lifetimes (although the
current implementation cannot specify the expiration time for this
type of lifetimes. It can only specify whether the lifetime
decrements in real time).
BTW: do we really need this level of detailed inspection to meet the
two-implementation requirement for a DS? When I raised a similar
question when we discussed how we should deal with the M/O flags in
rfc2462bis wrt this requirement, I was told that we usually only
require a rougher level (e.g. whether there are more than two
implementations that support NS/NA/RA/RS/Redirect messages without
requiring line-by-line conformance to the corresponding RFC). I
personally prefer detailed inspection (if we can do that within a
reasonable period), but I can live with the rougher version as a
real-world compromise. In any case, we should basically be consistent
on the requirement level not to make a double-standard.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
