Subject: RE: reconnecting an interface

From: Richard Draves <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 16:07:33 -0700

> > So the problem is that the router's down, so communication 
> fails. That
> > sounds like expected behavior, why is it a problem to fix?
> 
> The laptop should still be able to talk to other nodes on the same
> subnet even if the router's down, but it may only know them by their
> global address rather than their link-local address..

That should work fine without any special support for "detached" prefixes &
addresses.

When sending to a global address, if there aren't any default routers or
on-link prefixes the default is to assume it is on-link. So the laptop will
be able to communicate with its neighbors using their global or link-local
addresses and its own link-local address.

The only problem is the laptop's own auto-configured global address(es), in
my scheme they will disappear when the cable is plugged back in if the
router is not available to send an RA while in the KAME scheme they will
persist and be usable *if* there are no other reachable routers.

I still don't see this as a big problem.

Rich
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Bill Sommerfeld <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 21:51:30 -0400

> persist and be usable *if* there are no other reachable routers.

I think this is a crucial difference -- consider the case where the
system which got unplugged was a *server*, not a client (think of the
"someone tripped over the hub's power cord" case).  If it got
unplugged/replugged while the router was down, nobody on the LAN can
use its services until the router comes back?  Seems pretty fragile to
me..

					- Bill