Pekka Savola writes: > > Proposed replacement text: > >> An implementation MUST have some means of preventing loops. > >> Loop prevention SHOULD be done by having the proxy implement the > >> Spanning Tree Algorithm and Protocol as defined in [BRIDGE] on all > >> proxy interfaces, as described below. > > Is this strong enough for interoperability across ND-proxies from > different vendors? Loop prevention won't do much good unless every > vendor implements an interoperable mechanism.. > > The text is also a bit contradictory: "An implementation MUST have > some means.." and "The mechanism is required only if...". Granted, > there are some cases where it may be physically impossible (or > extremely difficult) to use the implementation to form a loop, but in > the general case, the implementor really cannot know how the devices > will end up being used. Maybe the first sentence needs to be reworded > slightly to include an escape clause there as well.
Point taken. How about: A proxy MUST ensure that loops are prevented, either by running the Spanning Tree Algorithm and Protocol defined in [BRIDGE] on all proxy interfaces as described below, or by being deployable only in an environment where physical loops cannot occur. For example, in a cell phone which proxies between a PPP dialup link and a local Ethernet interface, it is typically safe to assume that physical loops are not possible and hence there is no need to support the Spanning Tree Protocol (STP). -Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
