Alexandru Petrescu writes: > >> Finally, link-layer addresses have a tight relationship with what > >> goes in the last 64bits of an address. On ppp (and maybe others?) > >> links there's no link-layer address but there's means to have > >> something go into the last 64bits. So could we consider that IID > >> to be a link-layer address. > > > > => No we can't, the IID is in a completely different layer. The fact > > that you can use an L2 address to generate the IID, does not mean > > you can use the IID as an L2 address. > > Ok, I tend to think the same, too. But ppp gives an Interface ID and > there's no other means in ppp to have an endpoint identifier. So the > easiest way for ND to run over ppp would be to build some virtual > link-layer headers with Interface IDs in it. All other ND mechanisms > (multicast, DAD, etc) would run unmodified.
I'm very much opposed to this idea. Those Interface IDs are not link layer addresses. ND options including link layer addresses should be added _only_ when link layer addresses exist on the underlying media -- and they don't exist for point-to-point links. I fear changing this behavior to include Interface IDs instead of link layer addresses will confuse and break existing implementations. > An "Interface ID" is exactly what ND needs on a ppp link. Disagree. Why does it need _any_ link layer address? Why should it care? -- James Carlson, KISS Network <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
