>>>>> On Thu, 26 May 2005 15:31:54 -0400,
>>>>> "Soliman, Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> My primary suggestion is thus to remove "problem 1)" of Appendix A.
>> Or, if we still want to emphasize the "complexity" of the multi-homed
>> case, I'd rewrite it to:
>>
>> 1) If no Router Advertisement is received on any interfaces, a
>> multihomed host will have no way of knowing which
>> interface to
>> send packets out on, even for on-link destinations. One
>> possible approach for a multihomed node would be to
>> attempt to
>> perform address resolution on all interfaces. The same
>> argument applies to a singlehomed node that does not receive
>> any Router Advertisement, but the step in the multihomed case
>> involves significant complexity.
> => So to be very clear, you're suggesting that if we don't remove
> probem 1) then we should use the above text instead of the
> following:
> If no Router Advertisement is received on any interfaces, a
> multihomed host will have no way of knowing which interface to send
> packets out on, even for on-link destinations. One possible approach
> for a multihomed node would be to attempt to perform address
> resolution on all interfaces, a step involving significant
> complexity.
Yes. (While my primary impression is that we don't have to mention
this case any more with the removal of the "on-link assumption", which
makes the problem not specific to multihomed nodes)
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
