>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 02:44:32 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Regarding rfc2461bis, if we allow the mixed behavior, we also need to
>> clarify (at least) some other things that include:
>>
>> - whether a mixed node can receive an RA on a "host" interface to
>> configure a default router list
> Why?
Are you asking why (I'm saying) we need to "clarify" this point? If
so, it's because I believe the point would be unclear (see below).
> Per RFC 2461 the per router list is per interface.
> There is an issue for the implementations (probably all implementations)
> which have a per-node default router list, but from the perspective
> of the RFC 2461 specification it has already punted on all aspects of
> multi-interfaced hosts.
Yes, so if we allow the mixed behavior, then it is probably reasonable
to allow the node to accept RAs on a "host" interface and to configure
default routers on that interface. My point is that we should
*explicitly* note that the rule for the multi-interfaced hosts also
applies to the host-side interfaces on a mixed-behavior node.
>> So, (if we concentrate on the "simple" cases), I think we should
>> emphasize that even if an interface is not an advertising interface
>> the node still acts as a router on that interface (e.g., it can
>> forward from/to that interface, exchange routing information on that
>> interface, etc)
> Whether or not we concentrate on the "simple" case, I think it
> makes sense to state that a non-advertising interface is still
> one that behaves as a router e.g. the R-bit in the NA should be set
> since another router might redirect hosts to use the router that doesn't
> advertise itself.
Hmm, I agree. Let me rephrase this point then:
- if we concentrate on the "simple" cases, then we should emphasize in
rfc2461bis that even if an interface is not an advertising interface
the node still acts as a router on that interface (e.g., it can
forward from/to that interface, exchange routing information on that
interface, set the R-bit in NAs, etc)
- if we allow the mixed behavior, then we should emphasize in
rfc2461bis that even if a "router-behavior" interface is not an
advertising interface, the node still acts as a router on that
interface.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
