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 --------------------------------------------------------------------