Hi ND authors, I have a question on the choice of source address for the NS packets
When a new address is to be configured, the draft requires the host to send NS with with the IPv6 source address set to this address and to also include ( must ) the SLLA option Does this not cause a violation of the address scoping rules ( since the destination address is a link local address derived from the RA while the source is a global, assuming we want to register a global address ) ? Is there a reason why the unspecified address is not used for the source ( and include the address in the ARO option ) like in classic ND ? If this is because you want to include the SLLA option, note that this is not really necessary since the link layer source address can be deduced by the router from the L2 headers Also, if a host wants to register with multiple routers, it seems that each of the routers will end up doing the multihop DaD on the address. This will waste bandwidth ( as well as reduce battery life of host since the process will be much longer ). Instead, it will be useful to allow the host to differentiate between the intial address registration ( when DaD is needed ) and subsequent ones. One way to do this would be to use the unspecified source address during initial registration followed by the actual address for subsequent ones. -Regards, Joseph ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 15:21:50 -0700 From: Tetsuya Murakami <[email protected]> Subject: [6lowpan] SLLA option in NS To: [email protected] Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi All, According to the current 6lowpan-nd draft, I have one question. The draft mentioned NS must include SLLA option in order to inform the link-layer address of the host. However when the router receives RS message from the host, the router responds RA to the host. At that time, the router needs to know the link-layer address of the host in order to send out RA to the host. So, I think SLLA option of the host must be included in RS instead of NS. According to the current ND draft, after receiving RS message, the router sends NS message in order to solve the link layer address of the host by using solicited node multicast address. In order to eliminate the multicast packet as much as possible, I recommend to include SLLA option in RS instead of NS. Thanks, Tetsuya Murakami _______________________________________________ 6lowpan mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
