Hi Jinmei,
I agree with your proposed change. Just referring to RFC4861 is not
clear enough. You can arrive at the same conclusion by pointing to
RFC4861, but the reasoning is a bit more circular. Since there is no
text with the EXACT semantic in RFC4861, I prefer your suggested text.
Cheers
Suresh
JINMEI Tatuya / ???? wrote:
At Thu, 5 Jul 2007 11:06:26 -0400,
"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Having taken care of an NA target address that happens to be any address
assigned to the receiving interface, now we are left with only a target
address that is in ND cache of the receiving interface. Once a tentative
address has been taken care of, the processing of NA goes into checking
if target address lies in ND cache of the receiving interface and hence
section 7.2.5 of 2461bis applies - this rule takes care of an
unsolicited NA sent by a neighbor to the interface. Such unsolicited
NA's are used by nodes to update new ND information to neighbors.
My point is that it's not so obvious (at least to me) by simply saying
"If the target address is not tentative, the advertisement is
processed as described in [I-D.ietf-ipv6-2461bis]". Hence my proposed
text. I'm not sure whether you agree with it or not, but I'm still
not convinced that referring to 2461bis is enough. So, I still plan
to keep my proposed change unless I hear otherwise from others.
Thanks,
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
