>>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 21:10:03 -0700,
>>>>> "Richard Draves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 1. what should a host do when it receives an RA with the preference
>> field being set to 10 (i.e. reserved)?
>> - ignore the entire RA.
>> - accept the RA, but consider the preference value as
>> another value?
>> if so, high/medium/low?
>> - other option?
> How about, treat the RA as if the RouterLifetime field is zero. I think
> this will produce the best compatibility with future use of the reserved
> preference value.
Hmm, but, if all routers in a segment specify the reserved value, then
a host (which supports the router preference field, but does not
understand the reserved value yet) would never be able to make off-link
communications. I don't think it's a happy story. (Ignoring the RA
would also be a bad choice for the same reason.)
>> 2. if the preference value for a router changes, does/should it
>> affect existing destination cache entries?
> I think this is a quality of implementation issue that can be left
> unspecified.
> My implementation will invalidate the destination cache appropriately
> when the routing table changes.
Okay, I don't mind to leave it unspecified, but it would be better to
mention the issue in the draft anyway.
Thanks,
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
