JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote: > In conclusion I'd like to propose to change the paragraph of > Section 5.4.4 from: > > On receipt of a valid Neighbor Advertisement message on an interface, > node behavior depends on whether the target address is tentative or > matches a unicast or anycast address assigned to the interface. If > the target address is assigned to the receiving interface, the > solicitation is processed as described in [I-D.ietf-ipv6-2461bis]. > If the target address is tentative, the tentative address is not > unique. > > to: > > On receipt of a valid Neighbor Advertisement message on an interface, > node behavior depends on whether the target address is tentative or > matches a unicast or anycast address assigned to the interface. If > the target address is assigned to the receiving interface, the > advertisement SHOULD be discarded and the node SHOULD log a > system management error; this case would indicate that the address > is a duplicate but it has not been detected by the Duplicate > Address Detection procedure, which should be manually handled by > the system administrator. If the target address is tentative, the > tentative address is not unique. > > (the additional note "this case would indicate..." may sound too > verbose. If so, I'm willing to remove it.) > > Does this make sense?
The only part of the above paragraph that I keep questioning is the inclusion of anycast. I thought that it was perfectly fine to have duplicate anycast addresses on the same link and 2461bis still permits that. So I would change start the second sentence of the above paragraph as: "If the target address is a unicast address assigned to the receiving interface, ..." Thanks -vlad -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
