>> > 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?
>
> Generating NS and processing NA drives the state machine associated
> with neighbor cache entries.
>
>> other ND functions, of course they should be supported.
>
> I don't see how you get there at all.  You need to be doing
> solicitations and advertisements in order to do unreachability
> detection and those "other ND functions," don't you?

sure, if you need those functions.  on router to router links you don't
need NUD, which is why I don't want to make it a MUST in the
specification. 

> If you're going to somehow omit ND for address resolution, but use it
> for everything else, what exactly does that look like on the wire, and
> what support in the existing RFC is there for this sort of operation?
>
> I know what the current RFC suggests -- that is, that we send all of
> the usual messages based on neighbor cache entry state (just as with
> broadcast-type networks), but that the SLLA/TLLA option isn't used on
> any messages because the peers are point-to-point.  It's the same
> protocol -- one option less.
>
> What alternative usage are you suggesting?  At a guess, the system
> that would send NS because it lacks a neighbor cache entry instead
> simply creates the entry and "jumps" straight to REACHABLE state
> because it already "knows" where the peer is located.  Is that it?
> What other protocol changes are required in order to make ND-for-
> everything-but-address-resolution mode work?

no, if you need reachability confirmation you need to go through the
whole shebang.

cheers,
Ole

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to