Re: [Fwd: draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption and draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault]

[Radhakrishnan Suryanarayanan <rkrishnan.s@samsung.com>]

Hi all,
The following text in RFC 2461bis Appendix A will also need changes for
onlink assumption:
"   If a multihomed host fails to receive Router Advertisements on one or
   more of its interfaces, it will not know (in the absence of
   configured information) which destinations are on-link on the
   affected interface(s).  This leads to a number of problems:

     1) If no Router Advertisement is received on any interfaces, a
        multihomed host will have no way of knowing which interface to
        send packets out on, even for on-link destinations.  Under

        similar conditions in the non-multihomed host case, a node
        treats all destinations as residing on-link, and communication

        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        proceeds.

"

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian Haberman" <brian@innovationslab.net>
To: "Fred Baker" <fred@cisco.com>
Cc: "David Kessens" <david.kessens@nokia.com>; <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 12:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Fwd: draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption and
draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault]


> Hi Fred,
>
> On Apr 9, 2005, at 17:14, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> > On Apr 8, 2005, at 11:38 PM, Alain Durand wrote:
> >> I'm not sure I follow you... The change is in 2461bis, not 2462bis.
> >
> > Sorry, you're correct. That said, this merely amplifies the question -
> > and understand that I am simply asking a question. In English, we
> > often say that "there is more than one way to skin a cat". David is
> > saying that wiith 2461bis and adoption of the proposal in it by
> > various vendors, there may be no real need to publish this document.
> > Is there another way to document the information that might be
> > superior? Or is publishing this one the superior process? That's the
> > question.
> >
> > So 2461bis has not even been submitted to the ADs (2462bis has been
> > submitted and sent back for revision). Your assertion is that at least
> > part of the problem is that 2461bis doesn't contain a discussion of
> > why a certain change was made. Well, would it be worthwhile to put
> > that discussion into 2461bis, perhaps in an appendix? Or are there
> > other reasons to publish specifically this document?
>
> I would like to see the rationale for the change documented in some
> form.
> My preference would be to include it in 2461bis as an appendix (in a
> less
> verbose form).  That way, people will be able to see why the change was
> made so we don't re-visit the issue over and over and over...
>
> And as co-chair of IPv6 WG, I can help coordinate that work if the v6ops
> determines that is the path we want to follow.
>
> Regards,
> Brian