Nick
I haven't made up my mind yet about this draft,
but here are some comments.
- Sections 2.1 and 2.2 are not very clear. For example, in
section 2.2 there are two bullets that modify section 5.4.3,
but these 2 bullets are very ambigiouse as to what parts of
[rfc2462 sec. 5.4.3] they apply to. It would be better if
the draft spelled out the particular modified behavior.
- Section 3.1 of the draft states:
> ... Since the Optimistic Node already has the link-layer
> address of the router, and the router now has the link-layer address
> of the Optimistic Node, communications can begin immediately.
Where are these link-layer addresses taken from?
The router will ignore both NS and NA for the following reasons:
- NS is send without the Source Link-Layer Address option.
- NA is sent with the O-bit = 0. If the router does not have an
entry for this address (most likely), it "SHOULD" ignore the NA
(2461).
The only place so far the node can get the address of the router is from
the RA, but Source Link-Layer Address option is optional in RAs
(it's a MAY in 2462).
- Section 3.2:
For the simple case, there is a very minor effect on the operation
of non-optimistic nodes. An optimistic node will force the state
of all REACHABLE entries to transition to STALE and may force NUD.
This is a very minor effect, but it should be noted.
Also, the initial delay of the first NUD probe is 5 seconds which is
rather substantial amount of time that the packets may be blackholed
in the case of proxy NAs.
-vlad
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Vladislav Yasevich Tru64 UNIX - IPv6 Project Lead
Hewlett Packard Tel: (603) 884-1079
Nashua, NH 03062 ZKO3-3/T07
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
