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

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



Hi greg & Jinmei,
  Please find the comments inline.

> > I'm afraid people may forget that it is administrator's responsibility
> > to ensure the consistency among RA parameters from multiple routers
> > in the same single link (see Section 5.6 of RFC2462 - while the RFC
> > does not explicitly say it's admin's responsibility, but I strongly
> > believe it's the background intent).  Section 5.6 of RFC2462 also
> > clearly specifies the behavior when a host happens to receive
> > inconsistent parameters:
> >
> >    If inconsistent information is learned different
> >    sources, the most recently obtained values always have precedence
> >    over information learned earlier.
> >
> > An implementation might explore an implementation dependent trick like
> > combining routers and parameters to mitigate the bad effect of the
> > admin error.  However, I'd really want to make it outside the scope of
> > the M/O document.
>
> I agree with this,
>
> In this case, we need to ensure that the router advertisement which
> we're basing the decision on has the flags set.
>
> It may even be worthwhile explicitly stating that management of
> flags from multiple routers is not in scope.

Since the idea of the draft is for BCP/Informational on M&O, we shall as
well add an
appendix section to describe handling of the flags from multiple routers.

Regards
Radhakrishnan & OLN Rao




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