Re: routers - (was: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers")

[Fred Templin <[e-mail]>]

Pekka,

I meant only what I said - nodes should be able to selectively solicit
at least two different classes of information from routers. (Perhaps
there will be even more classes of information in the future; I
don't know).

Some routers might advertise only prefix/autoconfig information,
so they might not respond to the "Type II Router Solicitation" I
alluded to below. Other routers might advertise only route
information, so they might not respond to an ordinary IPv6
Router Solicitation. Still other routers might advertise both
classes of information, so they might happily respond to
either type of solicitation.

I'm not necessarily trying to write the MAY/SHOULD/MUSTs
here; I'm simply identifying the need and soliciting input from
the wg; thanks for providing yours.

Fred
[e-mail]
 

Pekka Savola wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Fred Templin wrote:
>  
>
>>However, the message that must not be lost in the terminology shuffle
>>is that it very much *does* matter that nodes be able to selectively
>>solicit at least two different classes of information from routers:
>>
>>  1) Classical prefix/autoconfig information as specified in RFC 2461
>>  2) Route Information Options as specified in:
>>    
>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-02.txt
>>
>>The two ways I see to do this are to either specify a new IPv6 ND
>>option (call it a "Type II Router Solicitation" for lack of a better
>>name) or to add bits to the existing IPv6 Router Soliciation message
>>(e.g., in the "Reserved" field) that indicate the type of
>>information being solicited.
>>    
>>
>
>I do not see the issue you describe.  You can solicit exactly this
>kind of information from any node you wish, right?
>
>Naturally, the hosts won't answer; some routers might not either
>(e.g., if they aren't configured to advertise such information) -- but
>that's not really relevant -- anyone can elect to be silent if they
>wish!
>
>Are you suggesting that all routers be somehow "forced" to return this
>kind of information (when asked explicitly in some defined manner)
>whether they advertise it or not?
>
>That probably would not fly.  
>
>Or are you suggesting that routers should be able to advertise (or 
>tell, when asked explicitly) about the information they know about 
>prefixes/autoconfig/routes, without the hosts implying they would act 
>as a default router as well?  Not sure I'd see a point for something 
>like that..
>
>If you meant something else, I didn't understand ..
>
>  
>



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