Subject: RE: [psg.com #245] Mixed host/router behavior

From: "Soliman Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 05:00:29 -0400

> >> Yes, so if we allow the mixed behavior, then it is probably 
 > >> reasonable
 > >> to allow the node to accept RAs on a "host" interface and to 
 > >> configure
 > >> default routers on that interface.  My point is that we should
 > >> *explicitly* note that the rule for the multi-interfaced 
 > hosts also
 > >> applies to the host-side interfaces on a mixed-behavior node.
 > 
 > > => We can explicitly state it but I think an important 
 > point here is that
 > > the spec already allows for this. We can always add more 
 > text I suppose, 
 > > it's a matter of taste. 
 > 
 > Wait a minute...what's the source on why you think "the spec already
 > allows for this"? 

=> You cut Erik's text which I thought you agreed with, well, the spec
does anyway:

	Why? Per RFC 2461 the per router list is per interface.
	There is an issue for the implementations (probably all
implementations)
	which have a per-node default router list, but from the perspective
	of the RFC 2461 specification it has already punted on all aspects of
	multi-interfaced hosts.

 (And I'm feeling I'm a bit confused about what
 > "this" exactly means).

=> "This" was referring to your suggestion to make sure that we 
state a mixed node can still receive RAs on the "host" interface.

Hesham

 > 
 > 					JINMEI, Tatuya
 > 					Communication Platform Lab.
 > 					Corporate R&D Center, 
 > Toshiba Corp.
 > 					[email-masked]
 > 

===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly
 prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
 and delete all copies.
===========================================================

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

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:22:36 +0900

>>>>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 05:00:29 -0400, 
>>>>> "Soliman Hesham" <[email-masked]> said:

> 	of the RFC 2461 specification it has already punted on all aspects of

My point here is that just because RFC2461 requires the default router
list to be per-interface basis cannot be the reason why it allows the
"mixed" host-router behavior.  It just means a multi-interface "host"
should manage the default router list per interface basis.

> state a mixed node can still receive RAs on the "host" interface.

Understood.  Then we first need to make a decision on the more
fundamental point: whether we should allow the "mixed" behavior in
rfc2461bis.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 06:09:31 -0400

> should manage the default router list per interface basis.

I believe that managing the default router list per interface is
necessary for supporting a mixed node.  If I recall correctly, Fred
Templin asked that very question in Seoul due to some work he was
doing.

Perhaps we need to clarify which aspects of 2461 are per-interface
for host-mode and router-mode.  We don't need to tell people how to
implement a mixed-mode box, but we can make state management easier
to understand.

> fundamental point: whether we should allow the "mixed" behavior in

See point above.  I feel that it is useful to clarify the management
of state variables for each mode, but not useful to specify how to
construct a mixed-mode node.

Regards,
Brian (speaking as a WG member only)