On Thu, 12 May 2011 15:20:30 +0200 Ole Troan <otr...@employees.org> wrote:
> >> To put it another way, if we think there is a good use case for this > >> as Ole describes, we will be doing a service to the devices that > >> don't have their IPv6 code yet, to make it a SHOULD so they are > >> more likely to implement it. > > > > Here is some proposed text: > > > > 5.3. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191 > > > > "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191] > > provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks > > each providing routers that advertise themselves as default routers > > via Router Advertisements. In some scenarios, one router may provide > > connectivity to destinations the other router does not, and choosing > > the "wrong" default router can result in reachability failures. In > > such cases, RFC4191 can help. > > > > Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) deployments supported by routers > > adhering to [RFC6204], use [RFC4191] to advertise routes to certain > > local destinations. Consequently, nodes that will be deployed in > > SOHO environments SHOULD implement [RFC4191]. > > > > Thoughts? > > I think that looks very good. > +1 > cheers, > Ole > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
