Hi Anupam, You are right the RFC allows the optional MTU update. However I would think that if an MTU is sent earlier, it should be resent on MTU change/ update.
Thanks, Vishwas On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 1:53 AM, Anupam Kapoor <[email protected]> wrote: > "Vishwas Manral" <[email protected]> writes: > > ,---- > | > From the specs it is clear that the MTU is optional. However if MTU > | > sending is enabled it should be sent on change too. > | > > | > Sounds like a bug in the implementation to me. > `---- > from thiruma's mail it seems that RA's are not sent *immediately* after > changing mtu values. from rfc, as vishwas has pointed out, sending mtu > is optional. > > following snippet from rfc-4861, sec: 6.2.4 > > The information contained in Router Advertisements may change through > actions of system management. For instance, the lifetime of > advertised prefixes may change, new prefixes could be added, a router > could cease to be a router (i.e., switch from being a router to being > a host), etc. In such cases, the router MAY transmit up to > MAX_INITIAL_RTR_ADVERTISEMENTS unsolicited advertisements, using the > same rules as when an interface becomes an advertising interface. > > > from above, to me at least, it seems that, the behavior that you see > doesn't point to a flawed implementation. > > kind regards > anupam >
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
