On Thu, 10 Feb 2005, Soliman, Hesham wrote: [lifetimes which decrement in real time]
> > > ==> AFAIK, the first option has not been implemented; I've > > > at least not seen > > > in done. Therefore unless someone shows that there are two > > > implementations > > > of this, this must be removed. (The same for > > > AdvPreferredLifetime, and a bit > > > in section 6.2.7.)
=> We were told this is implemented in Solaris I believe.
One implementation is not sufficient for DS.
However, even if there was a second implementation (probably yes) don't you think it's ridiculous that spec says MUST, while only one implementation has heeded that advice?
I suggest making it a SHOULD or MAY so it better reflects the reality.
This kind of disparity between implementations and specs is the exact reason for revising specs. These must be fixed IMHO.
> > > A proxy MAY multicast Neighbor Advertisements when > its link-layer > > > address changes or when it is configured (by system > management or > > > other mechanisms) to proxy for an address. If there > are multiple > > > nodes that are providing proxy services for the same set > > > of addresses > > > the proxies SHOULD provide a mechanism that prevents > > > multiple proxies > > > from multicasting advertisements for any one > address, in order to > > > reduce the risk of excessive multicast traffic. > > > > > > ==> does anyone implement this SHOULD? Note that this does not > > > give hints how to even go about doing that. If not, remove. > >
=> As mentioned earlier by Erik, this is a requirement on other specs using proxy ND. MIPv6 is an example of such protocol. I think this makes sense as a requirement. So let's keep it.
Erik said,
"As I said above, I think the MIPv6 RFC is the "implementation" in this case. But it does make sense to clarify that the text is about a requirement on other protocols which use proxy ND."
A clarification would be fine by me. This is not a requirement for RFC2461 implementors, but rather those specs which use proxying.
> > > Inbound load balancing - Nodes with replicated > > > interfaces may want > > > to load balance the reception of incoming > packets across > > > multiple network interfaces on the same > link. Such nodes > > > have multiple link-layer addresses assigned > to the same > > > interface. For example, a single network > driver could > > > represent multiple network interface cards > as a single > > > logical interface having multiple link-layer > addresses. > > > > > > Load balancing is handled by allowing > routers to omit the > > > source link-layer address from Router > > > Advertisement packets, > > > [...] > > > > > > ==> this is conflicting. The first para discusses > generic inbound > > > load balancing, the second load balancing that applies only to > > > routers w/ RAs. How do hosts perform inbound load balancing? > > > Needs text tweaking.. > >
=> Erik responded:
Leaving the first paragraph as is, since it is basically explaining the term, and adding something before the second paragraph that "Neighbor Discovery allows a router to load balance traffic towards itself if the router has multiple MAC addresses by ..."
=> I think this is fine so I'll add it to the doc.
This does not solve my wording issue. The paragraph just describes how _routers_ perform inbound load balancing. How about hosts which don't send RAs?
-- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
