Hello Michael I agree with the simplest, and I’m happy with the resolution to say that link local can be proxied in bridging mode but the scope for uniqueness is the collection of links covered by the 6LBR.
I also agree that it is not necessarily the most common configuration but it appears to be needed for some .11 configurations. All the best! Pascal > Le 9 janv. 2019 à 20:27, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> wrote: >> But doing so, we bar Link Local traffic that could have happened >> between nodes attached to different 6BBRs, e.g., in a Wi-Fi environment >> where the 6BBRs can be collocated with APs and maybe operating as >> Bridging Proxies. The proposal on the table is thus to proxy ND for >> Link Local addresses in the case of a bridging proxy. The registration >> and proxy operation would be the same as for a Global Address, but >> there’s at least one caveat. > > LL traffic is likely mDNS traffic and/or DNS-SD traffic. > I don't think it's useful to pretend it's a single subnet for the purposes > of making that work. > >> * Make the scope of uniqueness for a Link Local Address the collection >> of links covered by a 6LBR (easy, no change in the spec) > > seems simplest. > >> What do people think? > > I think it's too much thinking. > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
