-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Narten [mailto:nar...@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 2:58 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); erik.nordm...@sun.com; ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-03
>> "WB> Routers decrement the Hop Limit field. Therefore, there is a >> Hop Limit (255) that exists that can be used to indicate that >> packet has not crossed a router. Note, however, that ND Proxy >> explicitly keeps the Hop Limit the same, so this definition >> (especially in the presence of networks that use ND Proxy) yields >> a different notion of on-link than RFC 4861 and a different notion >> of on-link than reception of link-scoped packets. >Can you point to an RFC that supports the above? I didn't know proxies >take liberties with the TTL field. And if they do, I suspect things >will not work properly. See the ND Proxy RFC of RFC 4389 and section 4.1. Also, an IPv6 router is one IPv6 node that is expected to support ND Proxy. I don’t disagree with anything in the ND Proxy RFC. So why should we not keep this bullet in our document? Hemant -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
