>>>>> On Mon, 24 May 2004 23:20:39 -0700,
>>>>> "Christian Huitema" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Note that it is possible that there is no router on the link in this
>> sense but is a node that has the ability to forward packets. In
>> this case, hosts must be manually configured about the forwarding
>> node's address to be able to send packets off-link, since sending
>> router advertisements is the only mechanism to configure the default
>> router's address automatically.
> You are describing the "multi-link subnet" or "ND-proxy"
> scenario. May I suggest that we leave this to a specialized
> multi-link or ND-proxy RFC?
I don't mind to leave describing the issue to some other document(s),
but let me try to clarify one thing: I don't think this is specific to
the "multi-link subnet" or "ND-proxy" scenarios. The problematic case
(if we call it a problem) can happen due to simple misconfiguration.
I'm even not sure if the "multi-link subnet" or "ND-proxy" scenarios
is ever related to the point I described...as far as I know, the host
can still see router advertisements from a "router" in the sense of
RFC2462 (or rfc2462bis), which is just located in a different link
from the host's link. On the other hand, I was talking about the case
where the host does not see any router advertisements, whether via the
directly attached link or from a separate link via a "proxy" while
there is still a node that can forward any kinds of IPv6 packets.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
