Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 19:27:03 +0900
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| we do not implement "partly host, partly router" behavior.
That I can understand, it seems like a pretty weird thing to want to
me (though conceptually possible, and perhaps even an interesting case
to consider in protocol design, not a beast that many people are likely
to actually want to use).
| also, since RFC2462 basically assumes single-interface host,
Huh?
I just re-read the thing, and I can't find any assumption like that at
all.
In fact, the first sentence (after boilerplate, abstract, etc, is...)
This document specifies the steps a host takes in deciding how to
autoconfigure its interfaces in IP version 6.
"interfaces", in the plural. Sure, there are a few places where the wording
is perhaps a little loose when view with that possible assumption in mind
(which I had never done before I'll admit), eg:
If a node determines that its tentative link-local address is not
unique,
(3rd para, section 4) - which probably really should say
If a node determines that the tentative link-local address for one
of its interfaces is not unique,
and
To speed the autoconfiguration process, a host may generate its
link-local address (and verify its uniqueness) in parallel with
waiting for a Router Advertisement.
(last para of section 4, just before section 4.1), which would probably
be better written:
To speed the autoconfiguration process, a host may generate the
link- local addresses for its interfaces (and verify their uniqueness)
in parallel with waiting for a Router Advertisment.
but everywhere substantive in the spec I could find it always talks of
interfaces, and specifies things to be done per interface.
eg:
5. PROTOCOL SPECIFICATION
Autoconfiguration is performed on a per-interface basis on
multicast-capable interfaces. For multihomed hosts,
autoconfiguration is performed independently on each interface.
which is about as clear as it can be I think that multi-interface
hosts are expected to be supported.
What leads you to the "assumes a single interface" conclusion?
Whatever that is, certainly needs to be fixed.
| we do not really care about the following cases:
| - autoconfigured host with multiple interfaces
You might not care about them, but they seem to work for me? That is,
I run KAME, I have nodes set to "autohost" with more than one interface...
| - chimera (part-host, part-router) node
Understandable.
| - autoconfigured router
that would be broken (aside from link local autoconfig, and I suspect
that works in KAME too).
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
