RFC 2461- issue list

Folks,

This is what I found initially. Please let us know if 
there are any issues that should be added to the list.

Please note that some of these issues might not necessarily
be addressed in this revision if they require non-backward 
compatible changes. The main requirement here is to be 
backward compatible with our changes. 

If you wish to express opinions, questions or suggestions  
please start a separate thread with the issue's header
in the subject field. 

Thanks, 
Hesham

Issue 1: Mixed Host/Router behaviour
         by Pekka Savola, May 2001
         http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/lists/ipng/200105/msg00068.html
         Erik Nordmark made a comment that the text could be clearer:
         http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/lists/ipng/200105/msg00077.html

Issue 2: Check against the case of preferred lifetime > valid lifetime
         by jinmei, Dec 2002
         http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/ipng/msg07250.html

         This thread contained a possible updates on the router behavior of
         sending router advertisements:
         http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/ipng/msg07402.html

Issue 3: On-link assumptions in 2461 considered harmful. 
         This issue was raised by Alain and documented in:
         draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption-00.txt
         draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault-00.txt
Also see related issue in section 2.4 of:
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/ipv6/draft-jinchoi-ipv6-cRA-00.txt

Issue 4: Advertisement lifetime issues raised by Pete Barany

Issue 5: Clarifying the use of the M and O flags
         (raised by Rolf and others during V6ops meeting 
          in San Francisco)

Issue 6: The prefix length field in the prefix option
         and its consistency with the fixed prefix size 
         (64 bits) in RFC 3513. 

SEND issues:

Issue 7: All the security discussions (e.g. assuming that AH
         or ESP can be added to the ND messages) will need to
         be put in the context of SEND. 

Issue 8: Security considerations section needs to consider issues
         in: draft-ietf-send-psreq-04

Issue 9: The chicken and egg problem for ND security using IKE
         as specified in: 
         draft-arkko-icmpv6-ike-effects-02 

         and manual SAs issues addressed in:
         draft-arkko-manual-icmpv6-sas-02

MIP issues:

Issue 10: Reducing MIN_DELAY_BETWEEN_RAS from 3 seconds 
         to 50 ms as specified in MIPv6 (many emails on the 
         MIP mailing list in October and November 2002)

Issue 11: Eliminating the random delays required before sending
          an RS when a mobile node does a handover to a new 
          link. The random delay imposed by 2461 significantly
          increases the movement detection time for mobile nodes

Issue 12: Eliminating the random delays required in 2461 when
          a router sends a solicited RA. See :
          draft-mkhalil-ipv6-fastra-04.txt

Issue 13: Impacts of the omission of a prefix option. 
          section 2.2 in :
        http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/ipv6/draft-jinchoi-ipv6-cRA-00.txt
          describes the impacts of omitting a prefix option from
          an RA on movement detection for mobile nodes. RFC 2461 
          does not require options to be present in every RA.

Issue 14: Link ids required to aid with movement detection.
          see:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pentland-mobileip-linkid-00.txt

Finally, I recall (but not clearly) some discussions 
on the clarity of 2461 when it comes to multihomed hosts. But
I haven't managed to find the relevant thread(s) in the 
archive. So if you have an issue to add please let me know. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------