>> 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?
>I am imagining it. My point is, that maybe the restrictions you are placing
>on the solutions space don't make sense given what you are trying to do.
>That is possible, right?
NS/NA exchange over no-link-layer-address L2 is, yes, possible.
but i guess it require a lot of changes into RFC2461, and i fear it
is too much to ask at this stage. for example, i guess we would
need a lot of changes into wording about neighbor cache table.
another thing that bothers me is, if we have a device that tries
NS/NA on one end, and a device that does not on another, they won't
be able to talk to each other. we saw this with "NUD over no-link-
layer-address L2" already.
it it was 3 years ago, i guess i was okay with requiring 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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
