Bernie Volz <[email protected]> wrote: > If the client has not detected having moved to a new link but > detects a significant change regarding the prefixes available on > the link, the client SHOULD initiate one of the Renew/Reply, > Confirm/Reply or Information-request/Reply exchanges.
Maybe:
A client that believes it has not moved to a new link, but which
detects a significant change regarding the prefixes available on
the link, the client SHOULD initiate one of the Renew/Reply,
Confirm/Reply or Information-request/Reply exchanges.
I am not super happy with "believe" here.. anthromorphizes.
So maybe then:
A client whose link-change-detector [reference?] indicates that it
has not changed links, but which
detects a significant change regarding the prefixes available on
> A change is
> considered significant when one or more on-link prefixes are added,
> and/or one or more existing on-link prefixes are deprecated. The
> reason for this is that such a significant change may indicate a
> configuration change at the server. However, a client MUST
> rate-limit such initiation attempts to avoid flooding a server with
> requests when there are link issues (for example, only doing one of
> these at most every 30 seconds).
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
