>>>>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 05:00:29 -0400,
>>>>> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Wait a minute...what's the source on why you think "the spec already
>> allows for this"?
> => You cut Erik's text which I thought you agreed with, well, the spec
> does anyway:
> Why? 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.
My point here is that just because RFC2461 requires the default router
list to be per-interface basis cannot be the reason why it allows the
"mixed" host-router behavior. It just means a multi-interface "host"
should manage the default router list per interface basis.
> (And I'm feeling I'm a bit confused about what
>> "this" exactly means).
> => "This" was referring to your suggestion to make sure that we
> state a mixed node can still receive RAs on the "host" interface.
Understood. Then we first need to make a decision on the more
fundamental point: whether we should allow the "mixed" behavior in
rfc2461bis.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
