Subject: Re: v6 question
To: None <>
From: Michael Richardson <>
List: tech-net
Date: 02/13/2000 21:58:47
>>>>> "itojun" == itojun  <> writes:
    itojun> 	I agree my wording may be heard too restrictive, sorry about that.

    >> | 	The IPv6 specification clearly separates routers and hosts.
    >> | 	Only hosts are supposed to be autoconfigured.
    >> This may be just a matter of language, but as I read this, it isn't
    >> quite correct.   There's nothing about IPv6 that prevents routers
    >> being autoconfigured.

    itojun> 	RFC2462 page 8 has the following sentence:

    >>> Once a node ascertains that its tentative link-local address is
    >>> unique, it assigns it to the interface. At this point, the node has
    >>> IP-level connectivity with neighboring nodes.  The remaining
    >>> autoconfiguration steps are performed only by hosts; the
    >>> (auto)configuration of routers is beyond the scope of this document.
    itojun> 	Also, RFC2462 uses "host" to mention autoconfigured node throughout
    itojun> 	the document.  KAME stack implements RFC2462.  As long as we obey
    itojun> 	RFC2462, we can't autoconfigure routers.

  No, that's not the case. It simply says that it is "beyond the scope of
this document" -- that doesn't mean that you can't do it. It means that the
standard doesn't cover these problems.

]      Out and about in Ottawa.    hmmm... beer.                |  firewalls  [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON    |net architect[
] |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy");  [