>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:06:41 -0400,
>>>>> Bill Sommerfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> IPsec security gateways often find themselves in the "mixed
> host/router" role, acting as a host on some links and as a router on
> others.
> If the IPv6 WG declines to define mixed host+router node behavior, the
> IPsec WG might find itself needing So.
> The same might be true for other WG's as well.
> We might end up with multiple conflicting specs for mixed behavior
> nodes.
At least regarding forwarding aspects of the "mixed" behavior
(i.e,. from which interface to which packets can be forwarded), I
think it's beyond the scope of rfc2461bis. I don't have a particular
opinion on whether the ipv6 wg can/should take the role of the
definition, but IMO it's even not specific to IPv6 (perhaps as you
implicitly indicated above), so it seems to me the best place is
somewhere else (probably in the routing area?).
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
