> -----Original Message----- > From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:[email protected]]
> Folks, > > The issue related to "the statement in our draft that says to > not issue an address resolution for an IPv6 address that is > not on-link" has been addressed by the following new and > amended text in Intro section of our 04 draft that has been > posted today. I also fixed a few typos in the new text below > but the typos do exist in the -04 version. > > OLD: > > A host only performs address resolution for IPv6 addresses that are > on-link. Packets to any other address are sent to a > default router. > If there is no default router, then the node should send an ICMPv6 > Destination Unreachable indication as specified in [RFC4861] - more > details are provided in the Host Behavior and Rules section. (Note > that [RFC4861] changed the behavior when the Default Router List is > empty. The behavior in the old version of Neighbor Discovery > [RFC2461] was different when there were no default routers.) > > > NEW: > > IPv6 packets sent using the Conceptual Sending Algorithm > as described > in [RFC4861] only trigger address resolution for IPv6 > addresses that > are on-link. Note that transmission of ND messages is not governed > by the Conceptual Sending Algorithm. Packets to any other address > are sent to a default router. If there is no default router, then > the node should send an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable > indication as > specified in [RFC4861] - more details are provided in the Host > Behavior and Rules section. (Note that [RFC4861] changed the > behavior when the Default Router List is empty. The > behavior in the > old version of Neighbor Discovery [RFC2461] was different > when there > were no default routers.) Note that ND is scoped to a single link. > All Neighbor Solicitation responses are assumed to be sent out the > same interface on which the corresponding query was received. Sorry, but I find this confused. The first sentence says that on-link messages only will trigger ND (much like ARP in IPv4). The second sentence says that ND is not governed by the Conceptual Sending Algorithm. So this means that the first sentence doesn't hold any longer? The third sentence continues the thought process of the first sentence, and seems to ignore the fact that ND does not follow this model anymore. Sticking in that second sentence seems to make the third sentence a non sequitur. Unless the effect of this changed behavior of ND is explained, even if only briefly. Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
