Hi Erik, I agree with Jinmei's rephrasing. Both in RFC 2461 and 2461bis the wordings were sounding little bit confused. I would request the changing of 2461bis wording as suggested by Jinmei.
Regards Radhakrishnan ----- Original Message ----- From: <JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H (B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)> To: "Erik Nordmark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IPv6 WG" <[email protected]>; "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 1:40 AM Subject: Re: IPv6 WG Last Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-01.txt > Catching up a possibly minor point of an old thread... > > >>>>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:39:15 -0800 (PST), > >>>>> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > >> ==> AFAICS, you can remove 'both the Override flag is clear and' here, > >> because the same result happens if the Override flag is set. > > > No. The "but do not update the entry in any other way" does not apply when the > > O flag is set, since in that case the recorded link layer address is updated. > > I'm not sure if this really rejects Pekka's point. In fact, it seems > to me Pekka is correct here. To make it sure, I've cited the related > part from the draft: > > If the Override flag is clear and the > supplied link-layer address differs from that in the cache, then one > of two actions takes place: if the state of the entry is REACHABLE, > set it to STALE, but do not update the entry in any other way; > otherwise, the received advertisement should be ignored and MUST NOT > update the cache. If the Override flag is set, both the Override > flag is clear and the supplied link-layer address is the same as that > in the cache, or no Target Link-layer address option was supplied, > the received advertisement MUST update the Neighbor Cache entry as > follows: > (Section 7.2.5 of draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-01.txt) > > This awfully complicated block would be clarified as follows (BTW, > regardless of the result of this small discussion, it would be nice if > we could make this part more understandable in the 2461bis work): > > 1. If the Override flag is clear and the supplied link-layer address > differs from that in the cache, then: > - if the state of the entry is REACHABLE, set it to STALE, but > do not update the entry in any other way; > - otherwise, the received advertisement should be ignored and > MUST NOT update the cache. > > 2. (else) If > - the Override flag is set, > - both the Override flag is clear and the supplied link-layer > address is the same as that in the cache, or > - no Target Link-layer address option was supplied, > then > the received advertisement MUST update the Neighbor Cache entry > as follows: > [snip] > > Pekka talked about the second bullet of case 2, whereas you referred > to (a part of) the 1st bullet of case 1. And, in my understanding, > cases 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive. > > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
