> -----Original Message----- > From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 12:16 AM > To: Narayanan, Vidya > Cc: -; James Kempf; INT Area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv6 addressing model, per-MN subnet prefix,and > broadcast domain Marcelo writes: > > I believe those will be unicast RAs sent to the link local address - > > there will be a huge mess without that, as you observe (I believe > > there is a mess in the addressing model even with that, but it will be > > worse with broadcast RAs). > > > > so, the router will not send unsolicited RADV but will only answer to > router solicitations is that it? > > wouldn't this pose some problems with movement detection for instance? > i mean there will no periodic RADV to detect the we are on a different > link... but i guess you are assuming some for netlmm... but this is off > topic for the int ml i guess
Not sending periodic RAs over a shared medium seems to me to be pretty fragile. Router Solicitations are not periodic (at least from unmodified hosts), whereas RAs are. This means it'd only work if the initial RS/RA exchange worked, and the route/prefix lifetimes were essentially infinite. I wouldn't recommend this sort of approach. Instead it would be much safer to either have a normal shared media (normal = periodic RAs, and all nodes see the same RA), or else have a disjoint set of logical p2p links where each p2p link can get a different RA. -Dave _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
