Hi James, On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 18:05:06 -0800 james woodyatt <j...@apple.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2011, at 17:44, Mark Smith wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:55:18 +0200 (EET) Pekka Savola <pek...@netcore.fi> > > wrote: > >> > >> RFC4191 (Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes) should be > >> discussed. Is this a MAY? Quite a few host implementations already > >> support > >> it. > > > > I think this should be a MUST, or at least a SHOULD, as the simple CPE > > draft relies on this capability to support routing between internal > > subnets if the WAN link is down > > Which host implementations support the More-specific Routes option? I'm > aware of at least one major family of implementations that does not support > it, i.e. Mac OS X and iOS. > Linux does since kernel 2.6.17 (Jun 17 2006), although it defaults to ignoring anything but the default zero length prefix (i.e. ::/0), apparently because of a bit of dependency confusion between router preferences and the route information option. The default should probably be changed to accepting /64s. According to the following, "Windows Vista, Windows XP, Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2003 supports RFC 4191." Presumably Windows 7 does too. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb726956.aspx Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
