>>>>> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 10:42:02 -0500, >>>>> "Soliman, Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> => Agreed. In addition to Appendix C, we also agreed on the list to add a > paragraph to > section 7.2 (text from Greg Daley) to clarify the general > handling. This was also added. OK so far. > So, the change to APPENDIX C should cover the >> case of >> >> - an unsolicited ND message does not contain source/target LLAO >> - the receiving node does not have a neighbor cache entry for the >> source/target >> >> for RA, RS, NS and redirect. >> >> That's why I made this comment. Again, if the source of the >> change to >> 05 is different than this discussion, please specify a pointer to the >> real source. > => Your comment seemed to indicate that the non-existence of the cache entry > was a separate issue, but I don't think it is. The reception of an ND message > without > the SLLAO is only a problem if no entry existed. In other words, we wouldn't > have > registered this issue from the beginning if it were related to cases where > the receiving > node already had an entry. Yes, that's correct. Perhaps I was not clear in my previous message, but I actually meant: the change to APPENDIX C should cover the case of an unsolicited ND message does not contain source/target LLAO, AND the receiving node does not have a neighbor cache entry for the source/target (there are two conditions for a single 'case') Is this now clear and does that match your (our) understanding? Then, let's revisit the change to APPENDIX C in 2461bis-05. My point of the first message of this thread is that the change does not cover cases where a neighbor cache entry does not exist when the unsolicited message arrives (see the diff I attached to a previous message http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg05861.html). More specifically, I'd like to see new entries like: State Event Action New state - RS, no link-layer - - address ...hmm..., perhaps your intent was that such cases should be covered new entries like this one: INCOMPLETE NS, RS No link-layer - unchanged address If so, I see your position, but I don't think this is 100% correct, because the 'non-existent' entry cannot be in any state (INCOMPLETE in this case). I believe using '-' for the 'State' field in these cases should make more sense. > If you only mean: "Add the case for REDIRECT received without SLLAO" that's > ok with me. Yes, that's my point. >> If you really want to treat the two cases separately in APPENDIX C, I >> don't necessarily object to that particular decision. However, the >> decision should at least be consistent throughout the appendix. > => Good points. I agree with that. So to keep it consistent, I'll remove this > distinction > between host and router. Okay, but please clarify my first question, too: >> First of all, which part of the main text specifies this behavior? As >> far as I can see, the only text that explicitly mentions ICMPv6 >> destination unreachable error to be sent is in Section 7.2.2, where >> the error is sent upon retransmit timeout for NS messages (which is >> clearly a different scenario than this one). Thanks, JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------