[radvd-devel-l] RFC4861 compliance

[Pekka Savola]

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Silviu VLASCEANU wrote:
> I would like to know if this partial-implementation of NDP is compliant with RFC4861, in terms of changes from
> RFC2461 that are listed in the Appendix F of the former document.

This presupposes that radvd is RFC2461 compliant.  I've made some 
analysis and USAGI have done TAHI tests so in practise it's in a good 
shape.

TODO file lists the following:

The following parts of RFC2461/RFC4861 are not implemented:
  - section 6.2.1: Adv{Valid,Preferred}Lifetime that decrements in real time,
    that is, one that will result in a Lifetime of zero at the specified time in
    the future. (MUST)
  - section 6.2.5: when AdvSendAdvertisements changes to FALSE, we don't send
    a final RA with zero Router Lifetime (we just send it when shutting down).
    (SHOULD)
  - section 6.2.8: if the link-local address of the router changes, it should
    multicast a few RAs from the old address with zero router lifetime, and a
    few from the new address. (SHOULD).

The first bullet was actually changed based on my suggestion which 
seems to indicate that radvd was not RFC2461 compliant but should be 
RFC4861 compliant.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings