> > > 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.
s/disambiguity/ambiguity/
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
