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

Re: comments on draft-daniel-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-00.txt




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pekka Savola" <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: "Syam Madanapalli" <syam@samsung.com>
Cc: <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>; <ipv6@ietf.org>; "Soohong Daniel Park"
<soohong.park@samsung.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: comments on draft-daniel-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-00.txt


> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Syam Madanapalli wrote:
> > M/O flags indicate the avaialbility of the respective service, so if
> > a router advertises the M/O flags bits ON, I think we should OFF
> > them if and only if the same router advertises again to OFF. It is
> > administartor problem if one advertises with bits ON, and other
> > router with bits OFF.
>
> How do you propose the host keeps track of which router advertised
> which bits?  This kind of tracking is not done at the moment.

True, this requires one needs maintain the M/O flags information per router
basis. And this leads to implementation complexity. But I think this method
provides robust implemention. I am not sure how people are managing if
two different routers on same link advertises two different Link MTU. I
think the problem could be similar in both the cases.


>
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
>
>
>


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