Subject: RE: IPv6 WG Last Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-01.txt

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:41:12 -0500

Jinmei, 

Makes sense, I've always struggled with that paragraph too, it's quite hard to follow.
I'll make the change to something similar to what you have below. 

thx
Hesham

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: [email-masked] 
 > [mailto:[email-masked]]
 > Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 3:11 PM
 > To: Erik Nordmark
 > Cc: Pekka Savola; Soliman, Hesham; IPv6 WG
 > Subject: Re: IPv6 WG Last Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-01.txt
 > 
 > 
 > Catching up a possibly minor point of an old thread...
 > 
 > >>>>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:39:15 -0800 (PST), 
 > >>>>> Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]> said:
 > 
 > >> ==> AFAICS, you can remove 'both the Override flag is 
 > clear and' here,
 > >> because the same result happens if the Override flag is set.
 > 
 > > No. The "but do not update the entry in any other way" 
 > does not apply when the
 > > O  flag is set, since in that case the recorded link layer 
 > address is updated.
 > 
 > I'm not sure if this really rejects Pekka's point.  In fact, it seems
 > to me Pekka is correct here.  To make it sure, I've cited the related
 > part from the draft:
 > 
 >    If the Override flag is clear and the
 >    supplied link-layer address differs from that in the 
 > cache, then one
 >    of two actions takes place: if the state of the entry is 
 > REACHABLE,
 >    set it to STALE, but do not update the entry in any other way;
 >    otherwise, the received advertisement should be ignored 
 > and MUST NOT
 >    update the cache.  If the Override flag is set, both the Override
 >    flag is clear and the supplied link-layer address is the 
 > same as that
 >    in the cache, or no Target Link-layer address option was supplied,
 >    the received advertisement MUST update the Neighbor Cache entry as
 >    follows:
 > (Section 7.2.5 of draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-01.txt)
 > 
 > This awfully complicated block would be clarified as follows (BTW,
 > regardless of the result of this small discussion, it would 
 > be nice if
 > we could make this part more understandable in the 2461bis work):
 > 
 > 1. If the Override flag is clear and the supplied link-layer address
 >    differs from that in the cache, then:
 >       - if the state of the entry is REACHABLE, set it to STALE, but
 >         do not update the entry in any other way;
 >       - otherwise, the received advertisement should be ignored and
 >         MUST NOT update the cache.
 > 
 > 2. (else) If
 >       - the Override flag is set,
 >       - both the Override flag is clear and the supplied link-layer
 >         address is the same as that in the cache, or
 >       - no Target Link-layer address option was supplied,
 >    then
 >      the received advertisement MUST update the Neighbor Cache entry
 >      as follows:
 >      [snip]
 > 
 > Pekka talked about the second bullet of case 2, whereas you referred
 > to (a part of) the 1st bullet of case 1.  And, in my understanding,
 > cases 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive.
 > 
 > 					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
--------------------------------------------------------------------