>>>>> On Thu, 26 May 2005 00:45:18 -0400, 
>>>>> "Soliman, Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

> No problem, I don't think you're trying to block anything. Please continue to 
> provide comments on the doc, I appreciate it. I think what happened was that 
> I 
> assumed you were ok with the change since Peter said he was fine and I 
> interpreted your last
> response on that thread to be that you mainly wanted to see Peter's comment 
> addressed. 

Thanks for your patience.  Hoping that you can still accept this
one:-), here is one more related thing:

2461bis-03 (more accurately since 2461bis-01) has a new paragraph in
Section 7.2.5:

   In any state, if the link layer has addresses and an unsolicited
   Neighbor Advertisement is received with the O flag cleared, with no
   Target Link-Layer address option included, the receiving node SHOULD
   silently discard the received advertisement.
(the 3rd paragraph of this section)

The corresponding part of original RFC2462 should be the following
line:

   [If the target's Neighbor Cache entry is in the INCOMPLETE state when
   the advertisement is received, one of two things happens.]  If the
   link layer has addresses and no Target Link-Layer address option is
   included, the receiving node SHOULD silently discard the received
   advertisement.

As far as I can see, the new text is more than just a "clarification".
In the new text,

  - the rule is applied to all neighbor cache states.  (in original
    RFC2461, it was limited to the INCOMPLETE state)
  - a new condition about the O flag is added

So I guess there should have been a clear reason for the new text.  If
it was, what was that?  Or, if there was actually no special reason
(or we cannot even remember that), it would be another reason for
changing it back (for "safety").

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

Reply via email to