-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Pekka Savola wrote: > Hi, > > Speaking of RFC 2461(bis), some time ago I noticed the following > behaviour with a popular router implementation (a support case is open > on this): for forwarded packets, it takes up to 24 hours (in recent > software versions, up to 20 minutes) for the hardware forwarding to > notice that an IP address moved from one link-layer address to another > on the same link if unsolicited NAs (section 7.2.6, only an > optimization; few host implementations seem to send these) are not sent > by the hosts. > > My reading of the spec is that this is not compliant with RFC2461, where > protocol constants are REACHABLE_TIME (30s) and DELAY_FIRST_PROBE_TIME > (5s) -- unreachability detection could take about 35 times longer than > the spec. > > However, the spec doesn't say whether the defined protocol constants are > normative, and this could be explicitly stated if that's deemed a > necessary addition. > > Any thoughts? >
Given that 2461 (and 2461bis) are DS, I would find it very disturbing if implementers did not treat the entire document as normative. In order to be compliant with a spec (any spec), an implementation MUST adhere to all aspects including protocol constants. Otherwise, how would we ever have interoperability? I do not see any benefit in having any specification state *which* components of the document are normative. Regards, Brian -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFk871FShYTeGgKiYRCPx8AKC8V6OuAVzbTouoPkQcP928EeifYACdEYnR Z4w2IEwW0XV18LLxOWTSlvc= =J1Ds -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
