Catching up on email.. > Pekka Savola wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Speaking of RFC 2461(bis), some time ago I noticed the following > > behaviour with a popular router implementation (a support > case is open > > on this): for forwarded packets, it takes up to 24 hours (in recent > > software versions, up to 20 minutes) for the hardware forwarding to > > notice that an IP address moved from one link-layer > address to another > > on the same link if unsolicited NAs (section 7.2.6, only an > > optimization; few host implementations seem to send these) > are not sent > > by the hosts. > > > > My reading of the spec is that this is not compliant with > RFC2461, where > > protocol constants are REACHABLE_TIME (30s) and > DELAY_FIRST_PROBE_TIME > > (5s) -- unreachability detection could take about 35 times > longer than > > the spec. > > > > However, the spec doesn't say whether the defined protocol > constants are > > normative, and this could be explicitly stated if that's deemed a > > necessary addition. > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > In order > to be compliant with a spec (any spec), an implementation > MUST adhere to > all aspects including protocol constants. Otherwise, how > would we ever > have interoperability?
=> I agree with this. Pekka himself mentioned that this is not a compliant behviour according to 2461. A contant is a *contant*, which means it doesn't change :) .... Variables are also given max and min values, which by the english meaning of max and min implies that you can't go outside those boundaries. So I don't see the gain in adding that "protocol constants MUST be used" or something like that. Hesham I do not see any benefit in having any > specification state *which* components of the document are normative. > > Regards, > Brian > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFFk871FShYTeGgKiYRCPx8AKC8V6OuAVzbTouoPkQcP928EeifYACdEYnR > Z4w2IEwW0XV18LLxOWTSlvc= > =J1Ds > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
