Reminder: Re: [rfc2462bis issue 278] 2462bis for "routers"

2004-03-22 Thread JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
No one has provided an opinion on this...if the list is still silent, I'll leave the current text as is, as proposed below. If anyone of you strongly want something explicit on this in rfc2462bis, please speak up (with proposed text if possible). Thanks, J

Re: [rfc2462bis issue 278] 2462bis for "routers"

2004-02-08 Thread JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 17:32:03 -0800 (PST), > Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > So do we or do we not want to > 1. specify the per-interface router definition > 2. specify how RFC 2461 (and 62) behave on a multihomed node Hmm, I see the discussion about the definition of per-inter

Re: [rfc2462bis issue 278] 2462bis for "routers"

2004-02-08 Thread JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 13:50:44 +0200, > Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > JINMEI Tatuya wrote: >> The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies only >> to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses >> information advertised by routers, routers will n

RE: [rfc2462bis issue 278] 2462bis for "routers"

2004-02-06 Thread Karen E. Nielsen (AH/TED)
> JINMEI Tatuya wrote: > > >The autoconfiguration process specified in this document > applies only > >to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses > >information advertised by routers, routers will need to > be configured > >by some other means. However, it is exp

Re: [rfc2462bis issue 278] 2462bis for "routers"

2004-02-06 Thread Jari Arkko
JINMEI Tatuya wrote: The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies only to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses information advertised by routers, routers will need to be configured by some other means. However, it is expected that routers will

Re: [rfc2462bis issue 278] 2462bis for "routers"

2004-02-05 Thread Erik Nordmark
> +router - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly > + addressed to itself. [See Note below]. > +... > +Note: it is possible, though unusual, for a device with multiple > +interfaces to be configured to forward non-self-destined packets > +arrivi

Re: [rfc2462bis issue 278] 2462bis for "routers"

2004-02-05 Thread Fred Templin
Erik Nordmark wrote: So do we or do we not want to 1. specify the per-interface router definition 2. specify how RFC 2461 (and 62) behave on a multihomed node Well, from RFC 2460 we have: +router - a node that forwards IPv6 packets not explicitly + addressed to itself.

Re: [rfc2462bis issue 278] 2462bis for "routers"

2004-02-05 Thread Erik Nordmark
> Additionally, adopting this definition also opens up the possibility > of a "half-host, half-router" node, like: > > --(I1)Node(I2)--- >(I3) > | > | > > where I1 and I2 are "normal" interfaces for which the node is ac

RE: [rfc2462bis issue 278] 2462bis for "routers"

2004-02-05 Thread Russell Brian
RFC 2460 provides this note in the terminology section: Note: it is possible, though unusual, for a device with multiple interfaces to be configured to forward non-self-destined packets arriving from some set (fewer than all) of its interfaces, and to discard non-self-destined packets arr