Hi Tatuya,
JINMEI Tatuya / ???? wrote:
At Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:54:04 -0400,
"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for the reply. Let's see if we can meet common ground with you.
Our justification for prohibiting on-link caching is only in emails to
6man as follows:
"What if there are cache-inconsistency problems, prefix renumbering,
or stale information? I think it's better just to get rid of
caching on-link information in stable storage and get such
information fresh from RA's. That way, administrators can better
rationalize the behavior of their network from the configured RA's."
And I replied to this justification, saying this itself cannot justify
killing on-link caching while (perhaps implicitly) allowing address
caching.
Also, when Suresh Krishnan pointed out that he supports bullet 3, he
made us explicitly mention in the bullet that it's a new rule. We have
been clear in the draft where there is a new rule and where it's
clarification. Besides this new rule, the rest of the draft is
clarification.
Suresh has his right to express his opinion, of course, and so do I.
I would not like this document to set new rules (note, again, that I'm
not objecting to discussing new changes to RFC4861/4862. I'm simply
objecting to doing that in this document).
Of course :-). I was not sure about this either, but I was fine with
leaving this in as long as it explicitly stated it is a new rule. But I
agree with you in principle.
Cheers
Suresh
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
