>> when there's no link layer address (imagine tunnel interfaces),
>> there's no proper NS (packets go out without NS-NA exchange), however,
>> NUD hapens. is my understanding right?
>The MS implementation works that way. For a p2p interface, we create the
>neighbor cache entry in the stale state (since we know the link-layer
>address a priori), but then NUD can operate.
>
>Here's another scenario along these lines: assign a /64 to a p2p link
>between two routers. Now someone sends a packet to an address in the
>/64, but the address is not assigned to either router. The routers will
>forward the packet back & forth until the hop limit hits zero. This will
>happen before NUD has a chance to kick in.
>
>I agree with itojun, better to generate a
>destination-unreachable/address-unreachable error instead of forwarding
>a packet back out the p2p interface from which it arrived.
once we can make some agreement on the error code, i can write up
a draft/a fragment to be added to the existing draft.
at this moment kame test code uses ICMP6_DST_UNREACH/
ICMP6_DST_UNREACH_NOROUTE, but i think ICMP6_DST_UNREACH_ADDR is
better.
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
