>>>>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 00:55:59 -0700 (PDT),
>>>>> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 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.
> But it would be odd to do that only for the mixed case.
> We have this discrepancy between 2461 and relality for the host case already
> so shouldn't we also then explicitly note that the rule for the
> multi-interfaced hosts apply to the multi-interfaced hosts?
Perhaps we should. I just thought that the notion of the "mixed"
behavior is quite new and might be more confusing for readers and so
we should be more vocal. But this is probably a matter of taste.
(I guess the rest of your message will require more intensive
discussion, so I'm only answering the easiest part for now.)
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
