[134558] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NIST IPv6 document
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jima)
Fri Jan 7 00:47:44 2011
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 23:48:11 -0600
From: Jima <nanog@jima.tk>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <201101061116.03354.lowen@pari.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hey Lamar, long time no talk.
On 1/6/2011 10:16 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> Standards are written by people, of course, and most paragraphs have reasons to be there; I would find it interesting to hear the rationale for a router filling a slot in its neighbor table for a host that doesn't exist. For that matter, I'd like to see a pointer to which standard that says this so I can read the verbiage myself, as that may have enough explanation to satisfy my curiosity.
This actually came up last week in freenode/#ipv6; someone was puzzled
why there were FAIL entries showing up in their neighbor table, so I dug
into the RFC I found for ND (2461). Turns out, it specifically says
entries for failed solicitations SHOULD be deleted.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2461#section-7.3.3
It's the seventh paragraph into that section, including the indented
Note. ("Upon entering the PROBE state...")
Pardon me if that's the wrong RFC.
Jima
