>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 10:21:34 -0700,
>>>>> "Richard Draves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > 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.)
> My assumption is that if the reserved value is ever used, it will be to
> define a "black-hole" preference value that means "do not send packets
> to me". (I believe it was Robert Elz who suggested this.) So then for
> the default route, there isn't too much difference between a zero
> RouterLifetime and the "black hole" preference value.
> Do you have some other possible future use in mind for the reserved
> value?
I don't know, but if this (i.e. a "black-hole" preference) is the only
possibility, why don't you just define it in the (next revision of)
the draft? It would ensure the best (future) interoperability.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
