Ole, Let's talk specifics, not generics. Of course, we know about section 5.2 of 2461bis.
Snipped is following text from Introduction section of our I-D as to what we think about section 5.2 of 2461bis: Sections 5.2 and 7.2.2 imply that the host performs address resolution before transmitting a packet if the destination of the packet is on the same link as the host. Some current host implementations perform address resolution in all cases even when the destination is not clearly on-link. However, RFC 2461 [ND] section 6.3.4 implies that hosts must clearly determine that a destination is on-link before performing address resolution. Section 5.2 says "if the destination is on-link, then next-hop address is the same as the packet's destination address. Otherwise, the sender selects a router from the default router list." Implementers are not putting two-and-two together. As described in section 2.1 of our I-D, if a host has not been sent any PIO in RA, and the host performed DHCPv6, the host has no way to determine what's on-link for the host. Section 5.2 just says "if the destination in on-link...". Well, discussion first has to be made as to how can a host determine what's on-link for it. These are the clarifications we have made in our I-D. Proof is also in the pudding. We also say in Abstract of our I-D, if ND RFC's are almost 10 years old, why are popular hosts still making mistakes with on-link determination or totally not heeding L bits of RA ? ND has to be clarified as we have done so in our I-D. Hemant & Wes -----Original Message----- From: Ole Troan (otroan) Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:49 AM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: Vlad Yasevich; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Sending traffic to default router when RA has no PIO > If you say "this language should already be in the 2461bis" where is > it ? Show us the exact paragraph and section. > Please note that both an implementer of a popular IPv6 host and an > IPv6 certification agency missed this behavior. "5.2. Conceptual Sending Algorithm" explains how a host should behave in this case. /ot > -----Original Message----- > From: Vlad Yasevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 11:38 AM > To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Sending traffic to default router when RA has no PIO > > Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote: >> Section 3.1 of RFC 2461 describes intended behavior when a host >> receives an RA without an advertised prefix: >> >> "Multiple prefixes can be associated with the same link. By >> default, hosts learn all on-link prefixes from Router >> Advertisements. However, routers may be configured to omit some >> or all prefixes from Router Advertisements. In such cases hosts >> assume that destinations are off-link and send traffic to > routers. >> A router can then issue redirects as appropriate." >> >> As described in our draft, this language should be strengthened to >> state >> >> that without advertised prefixes, without manual configuration, and >> without redirects, hosts MUST send all non-link-local traffic to the >> default router and MUST NOT issue an NS to resolve any destination >> other than a link-local address. >> > > This language should already be in the 2461bis, just not in the > section you want it in. May be this paragraph can instead be made > more generic and do not go into to much operation detail since this is > a "Comparison with IPv4" section. > > -vlad > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
