> > I am getting back to replying to some emails that were sent > in response > to our drafts. I did explain what an aggregation router was > when we met > face to face at IETF. If you had read our drafts, that was one way to > learn about properties of an aggregation router wrt to ND. It was > unfortunate, neither you or Hesham had read our drafts when
=> Would you please not attribute things to me? I did read the draft before I commented in the meeting. I don't know why you keep repeating this. Hesham > folks like > Jinmei Tatuya, Alain Durand, Jari, and Vlad have. > > Anyhow, RFC 4388 mentions an access concentrator. When this > concentrator > supports routing, the device is an aggregation router. > > Hemant > > -----Original Message----- > From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:29 PM > To: Hemant Singh (shemant) > Cc: Suresh Krishnan; ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Off-link and on-link > > Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > > Suresh, > > > > At least our drafts do not ask for a new off-link flag. > Without a new > > off-link flag your scenario will have to go with (a). But do note, > > aggregation routers do not send Redirects. So the scenario below > > cannot be even supported on aggregation routers. > > Which RFC defines an "aggregation router"? > > Erik > > > > > Hemant > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 11:01 AM > > To: ipv6@ietf.org > > Subject: Off-link and on-link > > > > Hi Hesham/Dave/Erik, > > I am not taking a stand on whether an explicit off-link flag is > > necessary/useful or not, but I have encountered a scenario > where the > > existing algorithm specified in RFC4861 does not work very > well. Let's > > > say a router wants to signal to the clients that > 2001:dead:beef::/48 > > is on-link except for 2001:dead:beef:abcd::/64 that is > off-link. How > > would it go about describing this? I see two ways > > > > a) Advertise the /48 with L=0 and send redirects for all > addresses not > > > on the /64 > > b) Advertise the /48 with L=1 and the /64 with Q(the new off-link > > flag)=0 > > > > I see b) as being more efficient than a) > > > > P.S: I do not think that this scenario is very likely, > just possible. > > > > Cheers > > Suresh > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
