Subject: [netlmm] references 2462, 2461

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:06:25 +0200

References section should be updated.

Take rfc2462 for example.  It's actually now rfc4862 and should be in
Normative section, not Informative, I think.

2461 is now 4861.

This is relevant to our discussions, at least because the section 5.4.5
of 4862 (obsoletes 2462) is now longer and has more interpretation to
it.  Also, the argument made in the previous discussions that turning
the interface down is _only_ for link-local address DAD failure
(silently speculating that interface wouldn't be turned down for global
addresses) can easily be voided by the new twist in 4862 by which it's
no longer enough to DAD the link-local address, the global address
should be DADed too (2462  said it would be sufficient to DAD the ll if
the global had same EUI64).

I agree we need to carefully interpret other rfcs, but then better we
use latest references before jumping into conclusions for this design.

Alex

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: "Sri Gundavelli" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 08:58:20 -0700

Hi Alex, 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 1:06 AM
> To: netlmm
> Subject: [netlmm] references 2462, 2461
> 

Yes. I will make this change. Suresh pointed this out as well.

> use latest references before jumping into conclusions for this design.

I agree.

Thanks
Sri