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
(B I think the high-order question is whether mixed-mode
(B implementations exist
(B or whether folks are working on building such things. If not
(B we can limit
(B any text in 2461bis to what's needed for folks to not be confused by
(B the footnote in rfc 2460 about per-interface
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 02:44:32 -0700 (PDT),
Erik Nordmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Regarding rfc2461bis, if we allow the mixed behavior, we also need to
clarify (at least) some other things that include:
- whether a mixed node can receive an RA on a host interface to
configure a default
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 01:04:23 -0700 (PDT),
Erik Nordmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
How about a compromise that makes it clear that
- isRouter and all other ND configuration and state is per interface
thus there is nothing in the specification which prevents a node
being a host on some
(B Per RFC 2461 the per router list is per interface.
(B There is an issue for the implementations (probably all
(B implementations)
(B which have a per-node default router list, but from the perspective
(B of the RFC 2461 specification it has already punted on all
(B aspects of
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 05:00:29 -0400,
Soliman Hesham [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Wait a minute...what's the source on why you think the spec already
allows for this?
= You cut Erik's text which I thought you agreed with, well, the spec
does anyway:
Why? Per RFC 2461 the per router list
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 00:55:59 -0700 (PDT),
Erik Nordmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Yes, so if we allow the mixed behavior, then it is probably reasonable
to allow the node to accept RAs on a host interface and to configure
default routers on that interface. My point is that we should
How about a compromise that makes it clear that
- isRouter and all other ND configuration and state is per interface
thus there is nothing in the specification which prevents a node
being a host on some interfaces and a router on other interfaces.
The behavior of such nodes on a
(Forgive me for the late comment, too)
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:30:19 -0400,
Soliman Hesham [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
as the Subject; line of the email says, once you define
host/router
be per-interface thing, you will need to describe
router behavior for
every possible combination of
How about a compromise that makes it clear that
- isRouter and all other ND configuration and state is per interface
thus there is nothing in the specification which prevents a node
being a host on some interfaces and a router on other interfaces.
The behavior of such nodes on a
Regarding rfc2461bis, if we allow the mixed behavior, we also need to
clarify (at least) some other things that include:
- whether a mixed node can receive an RA on a host interface to
configure a default router list
Why? Per RFC 2461 the per router list is per interface.
There is an
- (if really necessary) in Appendix, talk about mixed mode node,
and benefits/caveats/pitfalls in doing so. even if we do not write
it up, vendors will do it anyways so my preference is not to mention
mixed mode at all.
If folks have already built such things or
IPsec security gateways often find themselves in the mixed
host/router role, acting as a host on some links and as a router on
others.
If the IPv6 WG declines to define mixed host+router node behavior, the
IPsec WG might find itself needing So.
The same might be true for other WG's as well.
We
. All get it.
Thanks
/jim
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 11:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [psg.com #245] Mixed host/router behavior
: Soliman Hesham; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
Subject: Re: [psg.com #245] Mixed host/router behavior
Regarding rfc2461bis, if we allow the mixed behavior, we
also need to
clarify (at least) some other things that include:
- whether a mixed node can receive an RA on a host
This is all just adding superfluous text to an already 90+ page document.
Again what implementer or customer have you found that has noted a problem.
Or we just masturbating RFC 2461 again out of boredom. We have so much work
to do in the IETF here and elsewhere I don't get why this is a good
Issue description:
RFC 2461 is not clear on whether it is possible for
a node to act as a router on one or more interfaces
and a host on other interface(s). The distinction
between the two functions is not clearly done on
a per interface basis.
Suggestion: We need to explicitly state that the
For each multicast interface:
IsRouter A flag indicating whether routing is enabled on
this interface. Enabling routing on the
interface
would imply that a router can forward packets
to or from the
i'm for simple router or host in document, and leave
per-interface
router as a exercise for reader (virtual router
concept is not new
so vendors will make such device anyways).
= The issue at hand is that the doc is not clear on
nodes that are both hosts and
19 matches
Mail list logo
