I have a question about draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-05.txt.
Section 5.2:
Redirect functionality SHOULD be supported. If the node is a router,
Redirect functionality MUST be supported.
However, draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-05.txt refer to the normative text on
Neighbor Discovery, ie RFC4861 that says:
Section 8.2:
A router SHOULD send a redirect message, subject to rate limiting,
whenever it forwards a packet that is not explicitly addressed to
itself (i.e., a packet that is not source routed through the router)
in which:
- the Source Address field of the packet identifies a neighbor,
and
- the router determines (by means outside the scope of this
specification) that a better first-hop node resides on the same
link as the sending node for the Destination Address of the
packet being forwarded, and
- the Destination Address of the packet is not a multicast
address.
It seems that the Node requirement text is going above and beyond what is
required by RFC4861, transforming the SHOULD into a MUST.
I might have missed (or do not remember) the discussion, is there a reason for
this change? And shouldn't the ND spec have been changed first
to allow to upgrade the SHOULD into A MUST?
For the record, I support the SHOULD in RFC4861 and I would rather like to see
the node requirements document say the same thing.
- Alain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
