> 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.
I just re-read the sections in 2461 about the conceptual neighbor cache
and the NS/NA packet formats and I don't see one word that would need
changing to allow what is being discussed.
Sure, if and when we convince ourselves that we want to mandate using NS/NA in
the /64 pt-pt interface case, then we should write that down somewhere.
(But if we ever get to that point, it could be done as a separate short spec.)
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
