So why is "IPv4 with longer addresses" a problem anyway?
me at benedikt-stockebrand.de
Tue Jun 1 16:36:44 CEST 2010
Hi once more,
Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> writes:
> RFC 2461, section 6.3.4:
just for completeness sake: That one's been obsoleted by RFC 4861
since September 2007.
> "the receipt of a Router Advertisement MUST NOT invalidate all information
> received in a previous advertisement or from another source. However, when
> received information for a specific parameter (e.g., Link MTU) or option
> (e.g., Lifetime on a specific Prefix) differs from information received
> earlier, and the parameter/option can only have one value, the most
> recently-received information is considered authoritative."
> ... and the rest of section 6.3.4, which provides the mechanism for RA
> Default Router List timeout.
> Please read this section carefully. You are simply not guaranteed quick
> failover when using RA. Yes, you can tune things down, but it's never
> going to be anything like a router failover protocol.
The timeout you are referring to determines how long a router is kept
in the list of default routers on a host, not for how long it is
The timeout determining which router is actually used is the NUD
timeout at 30s plusminus 15s.
> I'd be happy to retract a statement like that if you can provide a
In <4C03BADF.3080902 at foobar.org> you write:
] - loss of service measured in (by default) minutes in the case of router
Business Grade IPv6
Consulting, Training, Projects
Benedikt Stockebrand, Dipl.-Inform. http://www.benedikt-stockebrand.de/
More information about the ipv6-ops