Suresh, >> - section 1 bullet b. couldn't you argue that turning off periodic RAs is a >> configuration error? > > Not sure. It is commonly used in several WLAN and datacenter networks > to reduce the amount of multicast traffic.
ack. >> - section 1 bullet c. If a link isn't multicast capable, you couldn't send >> RS in the >> general case either. >> ISATAP has special provisions for that. could you >> make c) more >> general? > > Not sure how to make this more general. Do you have some suggestions? what was your intention with bullet c? right now it doesn't logically make sense. the link is not multicast capable => RS uses multicast => host cannot send RS either. >> - section 2.1. "...results in a default route". is awkward. this is the >> function we >> call "router discovery" in rfc4861, > > Would it work if we simply reword " an RA that results in a default route is > received" > into "an RA with a non-zero Router Lifetime"? use RFC4861 terminology, and say something like "successful Router Discovery"? cheers, Ole
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
