>> 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. > > If you've actually got links with no addresses at all, then I agree. > That seems odd, though, given the usual automatic assignment of at > least link-locals.
sorry, I meant links without link-layer addressing. >> > 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. > > Sigh. > >> 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. > > Changing that 'should' to a 'MUST' may fix the problem with the > document. > > As for implementations, I'd expect the implementor to have a really > good explanation of why he ignored fairly clear (if not capitalized) > 'should' advice like that, if it was in fact done on purpose. If it's > just a bug, then it's a bug, and might not need to be immortalized. > > My reading of that text is that if the peers have prior agreement that > they're not going to do ND, and if the designer or user of the system > has a Very Good Reason to believe that omitting ND is desirable, then > it's possible to do. Otherwise, as with any recommendation, you > 'should' do what it says, and use ND as usual. > > I don't know of any cases where omitting ND for IPv6 addresses makes > much sense. OK, so at least we've clarified that we're in disagreement. I don't see support in the specs for doing address resolution on links without link-layer addresses. what would the purpose be in doing address resolution on a link without link-layer addresses? other ND functions, of course they should be supported. cheers, Ole -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
