> > Major issue: RFC 2461 actually says that in 6.2.2:
> > - enabling IP forwarding capability (i.e., changing the system
> > from being a host to being a router), when the interface's
> > AdvSendAdvertisements flag is TRUE.
>
> > This is not how I recall the intent when we w
> I see the point in that we should try to fill in the gap between the
> reality and 2461bis/2462bis. However, I still don't see if this means
> we need to introduce the new notion of IsRouter as a per interface
> variable, allowing the mixed host/router behavior. In fact, the fact
> you are not
> > The first unsolicited NA (O=0) is allowed because there are cases
> > (think predictive handovers) where the router may be buffering
> > traffic for the MN, but it needs some signal from the MN to inform
> > it of its arrival (the NS doesnt' have enough information).
> > The NA O=0 will be enou
> The above IAB recommendation is therefore a logical consequence from
> what are described in the draft because the IPv6 address architecture
> specifies the interface ID length is 64 for addresses beginning with
> binary 000.
>
> We could still add the specific recommendation to rfc2462bis.
> Ho
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 10:11:02 +1000,
> "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 3. I don't think the advantage for the optimistic node when two nodes
>> simultaneously perform DAD is justified (Section 4.3).
>>
>> This gives the Optimistic Node a slight advantage
>> over Stan
