>However, you then say that you don't want to use the standard mechanisms
>which have been developed for dealing with this case. That is, sending a
>NS and receiving an NA. You say that this is because you don't want to
>drop packets during the resolution phase but I don't understand how this is
>any different than configuring P/64 on an Ethernet. You say that the NS/NA
>isn't necessary but in fact it is. By specifying the P/64 you need some
>sort of discovery to determine what address(es) are on the other side
>of the link. Your special case icmp6 error is just using a negative
>acknowledgement to achieve the discovery.
when there's linklayer address defined for the particular L2,
we don't do NS/NA (from the spec). please imagine ppp, or rfc1933
tunnels. do you think it reasonable to run NS/NA in that case?
then, what kind of changes are necessary to NS/NA?
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
