On Jan 9, 2017, at 07:51, Templin, Fred L <[email protected]> wrote: > > See below for a new draft that proposes to update RFC4861 and RFC4191 to > permit the inclusion of Route Information Options in Redirect Messages. > This represents a backward-compatible extension to the IPv6 ND Redirect > function. Please review and comment on the list. > > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-rio-redirect>
p1. I’m interested to see what V6OPS will think of this. p2. Section 3.3, Host Specification says this: >> In light of these considerations, a "Type C" host that receives a >> Redirect message containing RIOs adopts the combined behaviors of >> both of these specifications. Namely, the host updates its neighbor >> cache entry for the Target and updates its routing table per the >> included RIOs. If the Destination address is not the unspecified >> address, the host further updates its destination cache. >> >> Note that "Type A'" and "Type B" hosts ignore any RIOs and process >> the Redirect message according to Section 8.3 of [RFC4861]. And I wonder if you have considered the possibility of a “Type D” host, which in my conception would be capable of *only* processing RIO options that appear in ND Redirect messages and *not* in RA messages. I’m not sure that’s a type of host we want to encourage, but the idea of its possibility was one of the first things that sprang to mind when I contemplated the reasons why so few Type C hosts are currently deployed in the wild after more than a decade since RFC 4191 was published. --james woodyatt <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
