Re: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

[Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tatuya,

JINMEI Tatuya / ???? wrote:
> At Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:54:04 -0400,
> "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for the reply. Let's see if we can meet common ground with you.
>>
>> Our justification for prohibiting on-link caching is only in emails to
>> 6man as follows:
>>
>>  "What if there are cache-inconsistency problems, prefix renumbering, 
>>  or stale information?  I think it's better just to get rid of 
>>  caching on-link information in stable storage and get such 
>>  information fresh from RA's.  That way, administrators can better 
>>  rationalize the behavior of their network from the configured RA's." 
> 
> And I replied to this justification, saying this itself cannot justify
> killing on-link caching while (perhaps implicitly) allowing address
> caching.
> 
>> Also, when Suresh Krishnan pointed out that he supports bullet 3, he
>> made us explicitly mention in the bullet that it's a new rule. We have
>> been clear in the draft where there is a new rule and where it's
>> clarification. Besides this new rule, the rest of the draft is
>> clarification.
> 
> Suresh has his right to express his opinion, of course, and so do I.
> I would not like this document to set new rules (note, again, that I'm
> not objecting to discussing new changes to RFC4861/4862.  I'm simply
> objecting to doing that in this document).

Of course :-). I was not sure about this either, but I was fine with 
leaving this in as long as it explicitly stated it is a new rule. But I 
agree with you in principle.

Cheers
Suresh

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