Subject: Re: v6 question
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
Date: 02/14/2000 13:37:01
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:15:50 +0900
| RFC2462 page 8 has the following sentence:
Yes, but that's talking only about the mechanisms in 2462.
| As long as we obey RFC2462, we can't autoconfigure routers.
No, that's an incorrect conclusion. You can autoconfigure routers
and not conflict with it in the slightest. What doesn't make sense
is to use the 2462 mechanisms (or at least, only those mechanisms) and
pretend to be autoconfiguring a router.
| Someone can tackle the problem in revision of RFC2462, or some new
| document :-)
A new doc, yes - that will be needed, though whether the doc comes
first, or someone tries writing the code first, and documents it
after it works (or at least a prototype works) is not so important.
Until now (and continuing) this hasn't been a high priority issue,
as the focus has been on getting IPv6 into hosts as good as possible,
and in routers, just at least as good as IPv4. IPv4 doesn't autoconf
routers, so IPv6 doesn't need to (now) either. In the future it will
(and would, whether it was IPv6 or IPv4, or anything else) that is
being used. Part of the assumption here is that there are less routers
than hosts, and that they get updated more frequently.