At Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:54:04 -0400, "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. Let's see if we can meet common ground with you. > > Our justification for prohibiting on-link caching is only in emails to > 6man as follows: > > "What if there are cache-inconsistency problems, prefix renumbering, > or stale information? I think it's better just to get rid of > caching on-link information in stable storage and get such > information fresh from RA's. That way, administrators can better > rationalize the behavior of their network from the configured RA's." And I replied to this justification, saying this itself cannot justify killing on-link caching while (perhaps implicitly) allowing address caching. > Also, when Suresh Krishnan pointed out that he supports bullet 3, he > made us explicitly mention in the bullet that it's a new rule. We have > been clear in the draft where there is a new rule and where it's > clarification. Besides this new rule, the rest of the draft is > clarification. Suresh has his right to express his opinion, of course, and so do I. I would not like this document to set new rules (note, again, that I'm not objecting to discussing new changes to RFC4861/4862. I'm simply objecting to doing that in this document). --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
