>>>>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:30:25 -0700,
>>>>> "Richard Draves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 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.
> Because defining and implementing it properly is complicated, and it's
> not clear if it's worth the trouble.
Then I'd suggest to add the following logic to the draft.
a host should treat an RA with the reserved preference as if it has
the 0 router lifetime field, because the only known possibility of
the usage of the reserved value is a "black-hole" preference. but
the current draft does not specify the semantics, because ... (your
rationale). To insure future interoperability, the reserved value
should not be used with other semantics than a kind of the
"black-hole" preference.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
