> > > For each multicast interface:
> > >
> > > IsRouter A flag indicating whether routing is enabled on
> > > this interface. Enabling routing on the
> > interface
> > > would imply that a router can forward packets
> > > to or from the interface.
> > >
> > > This issue is now resolved
> >
> > sorry about late comment, but how far would you like to go?
> > like interface A forwards to B (and vice versa), and C-D, ...
> > how would you describe?
>
> => I don't understand the comment. The definition implies that you
> can't forward from a non-routing interface. Perhaps you mean
> that you should be able to forward _to_ a non-routing interface?
no. by making "router" per-interface, you could have multiple
set of interfaces which forward packet to/from. for instance,
your router has 10 interfaces, and #1 is host mode, #2-#4 exchange
traffic as router, #5-#9 exchange traffic as router (it's separate
from #2-#4), and #10 is host mode. once you go into "router/host is
a per-interface thing" you need to describe such combinaions in full
detail. do you see my point?
> > i'm for simple "router or host" in document, and leave
> > per-interface
> > "router" as a exercise for reader ("virtual router"
> > concept is not new
> > so vendors will make such device anyways).
>
> => The issue at hand is that the doc is not clear on
> nodes that are both hosts and routers. Do you see any
> harm in making the definition per interface?
yes. i see a big harm and disambiguity introduced by the change.
again, keep the document simple, and let vendors do funny/complex
things if they want to.
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
