[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: RFC 2461-new issue?




 >   In section 4.2 of RFC 2461 regarding the RA message format 
 > the following 
 > is mentioned
 > 
 >      Reserved       A 6-bit unused field.  It MUST be initialized to
 >                      zero by the sender and MUST be ignored by the
 >                      receiver.
 > 
 > The mobile-ipv6 draft draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-24.txt 
 > mandates using the 
 > most significant bit of this field as a home agent bit(will 
 > be set to 1 if 
 > the router is also a MIPv6 HA on this link). I do not know 
 > what is the 
 > best way to solve this apparent contradiction. I see the following 
 > possible solutions (in no particular order)

=> I don't think there is a contradiction. Any IETF
spec can be extended by another spec. The question is
whether we want to include all these extensions in the 
new ND spec. I have no problem with that, but I see a couple 
of issues:

1. New extensions are bound to happen anyway and people
will implement them as they come. So the ND spec is likely
to not always include all extensions.
2. This RFC is in DS status and my understanding is that
there is a limit on the new features that can be included, 
especially if they come from less mature specifications. 

If (2) above is incorrect then there is no problem with
adding new features. 

Hesham

 > 
 > * Reduce the reserved field length in RFC2461bis to 5 bits
 > * Change the MUSTs to SHOULDs in RFC2461bis
 > * Put a note on RFC2461/RFC2461bis in the rfc-index saying 
 > it has been 
 > updated by the MIPv6 RFC(when it comes out)
 > 
 > Regards
 > Suresh
 > 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------