>>>>> On Tue, 25 May 2004 08:26:57 +0200,
>>>>> "Christian Strauf (JOIN)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> We might add a further notice on the suggested configuration:
>>
>> Thus, a node that has the ability of forwarding should be configured
>> to send router advertisements unless there is a strong reason to not
>> do so.
>>
>> Though I personally think the last sentence is too much in the scope
>> of rfc2462bis. But I can live with either
>>
>> 1. do nothing on this in rfc2462bis,
>> 2. add the above note without the "further" notice, or
>> 3. add the above note with the "further" notice
> I understand your reservations regarding the scope of the sentence, but
> w.r.t. to the "default router issue" I think that especially the
> "further notice" section will relieve us of some pain because it
> clarifies that we really do want forwarding nodes to send RAs in the
> majority of cases. So I would vote for 3.. However, we could try to
> clarify this issue in another document (something like a BCP?), if we
> feel that it's out of scope for 2462bis.
>> Are you happy with the clarification (with or without the "further"
>> notice")? What do others think?
> Yes, the clarification looks very good and I really think that it is
> necessary. I'm curious to hear the others' opinions where it should be
> placed (in 2462bis or someplace else).
There seems to be no strong opinion except yours ("another" Christian
wanted to leave this to ND-proxy, but I think this is not necessarily
related to ND-proxy as I pointed out in the response to him).
So I'll add the proposed clarification with the "further notice" in
the next revision of rfc2462bis. We can still change the wording or
even remove the text if someone finds a significant problem in it or a
better place to describe that in reviewing the revision.
I'll probably reword the "further notice" though, since the original
text seems a bit too strong. I'll probably say:
Thus, a node that has the ability of forwarding should be configured
to send router advertisements on a link that has a host depending on
the advertisements unless there is a strong reason to not do so.
For example, a forwarding node does not have to send RAs on a p2p link
if the administrator is sure that the other end of the link is also a
router. We might be able say "A strong reason" in the original text
incudes this example, but I think it should be better to clarify the
point explicitly.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
