Thomas,
> > > I've reviewed this document and on the whole think it's fine for PS.
> > >
> > > But I do have one general concern. This document requires that an
> > > implementation do what in practice, I think might be "difficult" for
> > > some implementations. While that is OK at one level, I fear that some
> > > implementors will do most of this spec, but not all of it. I wonder if
> > > that would be a good outcome.
>
> BTW, what I meant to say above was more like:
>
> This document requires that an implementation do things that may
> logically (if you follow the conceptual sending model) be hard to
> do, because the information needed to do something may not be
> available at that point in the algorithm (implementation). I.e., one
> ends up having to have access to the ND cache info while doing steps
> that (previously) were logically completely separate from the ND
> cache. I wonder if in practice, these might be "difficult" for some
> implementations.
>
To be more specific, if I understand your concern correctly, the problem is
that the host is required by this to send packets to the router at a time
when it does not have the router's link address?
jak
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
