Subject: Re: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 16:00:00 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

   Just to make things clearer, are you:
   
     - agreeing with the document, while at the same time reminding the 
       general principle that "the link-layer should adapt, not the
       network layer", or 
   
     - disagreeing with the document based on that same principle
   
   If the former then I'd agree with you.
   
=> it is the former because by applying the principle it lacks
of any real justification, i.e., it is some kind of transient
disagreement.

   But if the latter then let me disagree. I don't think the document 
   proposes that the network layer adapt to the link layer. My 
   understanding is that the document is relaxing some constraints on 
   the *configuration* of the network layer (rather than modifying the 
   *protocols*), and AFAICS this is fine if it does not break operation 
   of the protocols themselves.
   
=> but there is no justification when the document is applied to
a general link layer.

   In that specific case, when an interface's link layer is such that the 
   router never changes, it makes sense to allow for an infinite 
   lifetime in the configuration.
   
=> too large lifetimes are as stupid as too small lifetimes.
We have crazy timing from people using RAs as a beacon,
IMHO we already accepted too much.

   But perhaps you have in mind a specific scenario that would be broken 
   by the relaxation of configuration constraints?
   
=> I have not to find one, the document has to be justified
(in French I have not the "charge de la preuve").

Regards

[email-masked]

PS: IMHO the current default and maximum lifetimes are pretty good...

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------