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 enough to get
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
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 wrote the
I think the high-order question is whether mixed-mode
implementations exist
or whether folks are working on building such things. If not
we can limit
any text in 2461bis to what's needed for folks to not be confused by
the footnote in rfc 2460 about per-interface
It seems like in 2461bis-00.txt that the introduction of IsRouter in
6.2.1 is inconsistent with the text in 6.2.2 about
AdvSendAdvertisements.
RFC 2461 reads as if a node "advertises" itself as a router
(by sending RAs
and setting the R-flag in NAs any time
On 2004-07-27, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote:
Before going to the specific ones, I'd like to present the basic logic
I'd (personally) envision in this discussion. (It's my personal
opinion. I know opinions may vary on this.)
The most important thing is to not cause
Hi,
RFC 1888 section 'IPv6 addresses inside an NSAPA' does not provide a way to put the
tcp port number inside the NSAP. Whereas for IPv4 addresses `RFC 1277 section 4.5 -
TCP/IP Network Specific Format` specified a format that allowed the port number to be
also specified. For certain
Folks,
This issue is now resolved.
Hesham
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2004 12:54 AM
Subject: [psg.com #256] Eliminate random delay in RS transmission
Issue:
---
This issue was raised in order
