nanog mailing list archives
Re: turning on comcast v6
From: Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 12:10:54 -0500
On Mon, 06 Jan 2014 09:44:32 -0600, Leo Bicknell said:
"mandate" isn't the right description. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6059 There is a ~3 year old _proposed standard_ for the behavior you describe.
I'll make the case that if a "router" becomes unable to forward packets because it has lost its uplink or connection to another subnet (so it's now homed on only one subnet), that's a router-to-host transition. RFC2461, sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 discuss the case of a router becoming a host - and it includes "thou shalt cease blabbing the RAs after a suitable amount of time". And that's a heck of a lot older than 3 years.
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: turning on comcast v6, (continued)
- Re: turning on comcast v6 Ricky Beam (Jan 03)
- Re: turning on comcast v6 Owen DeLong (Jan 04)
- Re: turning on comcast v6 Ricky Beam (Jan 06)
- Re: turning on comcast v6 Owen DeLong (Jan 06)
- Re: turning on comcast v6 Paul Ferguson (Jan 06)
- Re: turning on comcast v6 Owen DeLong (Jan 06)
- Re: turning on comcast v6 Aled Morris (Jan 06)
- Re: turning on comcast v6 Leo Bicknell (Jan 04)
- Re: turning on comcast v6 Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 05)
- Re: turning on comcast v6 Leo Bicknell (Jan 06)
- Re: turning on comcast v6 Valdis . Kletnieks (Jan 06)
- Re: turning on comcast v6 Leo Bicknell (Jan 03)
- Re: turning on comcast v6 Gary Buhrmaster (Jan 03)