----- Original Message ----- From: "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Syam Madanapalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Soohong Daniel Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:20 AM Subject: Re: comments on draft-daniel-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-00.txt
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Syam Madanapalli wrote: > > M/O flags indicate the avaialbility of the respective service, so if > > a router advertises the M/O flags bits ON, I think we should OFF > > them if and only if the same router advertises again to OFF. It is > > administartor problem if one advertises with bits ON, and other > > router with bits OFF. > > How do you propose the host keeps track of which router advertised > which bits? This kind of tracking is not done at the moment. True, this requires one needs maintain the M/O flags information per router basis. And this leads to implementation complexity. But I think this method provides robust implemention. I am not sure how people are managing if two different routers on same link advertises two different Link MTU. I think the problem could be similar in both the cases. > > -- > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
