Subject: Re: v6 question
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Michael Richardson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/13/2000 21:58:47
>>>>> "itojun" == itojun <email@example.com> 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[
] firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [