Hi Sebastien, >> The default route would always be known and PPA to send to >simply from >> RAs, if nothing else were known by the end node. > >Jim, I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. Can >you rephrase it?
When the node hears RAs it can note the router that sent them as implementation feature :--) > >> >> Are you suggesting a change to ND or to configuration of the network >> as potential outcome. > >That's a really good question. I'm not sure what would be the >best way to address this. What we're saying in this draft is >that operational experience has shown that this part of ND >could be problematic in some circumstances. Does ND need to >be changed as a result? Probably not. There are no MUST's >surrounding that bit of ND. As implementors, we're free to >interpret the spec in a sane mannor. With this draft, we're >pointing out reasons why implementors may want to be careful >with that part of ND. There is informational value in this >alone without having to muck with the ND spec itself. I agree. Thanks /jim > >-Seb > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
