I think it's easy to see the disagreement just comparing the responses from Ole and James.
Ole says: > I don't see the point of doing address resolution on links without > addresses. James says: > IPV6CP (RFC 2472) negotiates > only interface identifiers, and not addresses, and ND > (2461) says that Neighbor Discovery is supposed to be implemented for > point-to-point links, so I'd expect ND to be used on those links. To answer "what's the possible interoperability issue", Markus Jork nailed it in the referenced thread: > If one implementation sends a NS and > expects to see a NA before sending the first message to the neighbors > address but the other implementation doesn't use NS/NA messages on the > PPP link, there is a problem. We have now observed the problem Markus predicted, with real implementations. That is, I know of two non-interoperable implementations of RFC 2472. I think James' argument does have real substance. The quote from 2461 section 3.2 is (especially the last sentence): > point-to-point - Neighbor Discovery handles such links just like > multicast links. (Multicast can be trivially > provided on point to point links, and interfaces > can be assigned link-local addresses.) Neighbor > Discovery should be implemented as described in > this document. If this is the behavior we agree on, then I think that answers my question. -Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Ole Troan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 10:49 AM > To: Dave Thaler > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: Neighbor Discovery and PPP links > > > Came across this thread... > > > > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg02314.html > > > > > > > > However, in looking at draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2-03, it seems that > > this issue was never addressed. > > > > > > > > Is this intentional? Was there ever an agreement that ND should or > > should not be done on PPP links? > > by "ND" you mean address resolution? I presume there is no disagreement > that other ND functions (DAD,NUD,Router Discovery, Prefix Discovery, > etc) should be done on PPP links. > > > (If there was, I haven't found it yet, only uncertainty and the fact > > that the IPv6 over PPP RFC has > > > > Interoperability problems and that it should be fixed in > > draft-ietf-ipv6-over-ppp-v2.) > > I don't see the point of doing address resolution on links without > addresses. 2461 seems quite good at specifying that the LLA options > should only be included for links with addresses. what's the possible > interoperabbility issue? > > cheers, > Ole -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
