Differences between LL18 proposed resolutions
Bernard Aboba <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.zeroconf |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Looking at the two proposed resolutions of LL18, here are the differences: 1. Mention of source address selection has been removed from 2.6.1 (the sentence "For a multi-homed host, the decision as to which source address to use is also more difficult"). It does seem somewhat relevant to discuss this in 2.6.1 or 2.6.2. 2. The suggested "MUST ARP for the destination address" has been changed to "SHOULD ARP". My understanding was that MUST ARP was selected since source address/interface selection and the desire to send the packet (as opposed to dropping it) was presumed. I'd therefore suggest that MUST ARP be put back. 3. Additional text on "ARP for everything" has been added. This text appears to conflict with the desired multi-homing behavior, so I would suggest that we rephrase it to say "In the case of a device with a single interface and only a link-local address". Also at the end of the paragraph, we might add "For suggested behavior in multi-homed hosts, see Section 3."