Hi James, > -----Original Message----- > From: Int-area [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of james woodyatt > Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 11:02 AM > To: 6man WG <[email protected]>; INT Area <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Route Information Options in Redirect Messages > > 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.
If the concern is for backwards compatibility with legacy deployments, the proposal honors backwards compatibility per RFC4861. What do you think? > 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. Had not considered that, but I don't see a problem with it. FWIW, the 'Type A/B/C' comes from RFC4191 in case others are wondering. > 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. I am interested in usage inside of a managed network, and not so much about deployment in the wild. Inside of a managed network, the network administrators could enable this function among the deployed hosts to provide the network with a means to manage routing information for more-specific routes. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > --james woodyatt <[email protected]> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
