Hi Mark, (a)-(c): Link local is orthogonal in this topic. This document does not address it.
(d)-(f): Static IPv6 neighbor has been used occasionally. There are quite a few sources which describe it, so please refer to them. (g): This document didn't go any further into the definition of IID. But it did prevent addresses with all zeros in the rightmost 64 bits. Thanks, Miya > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Mark Smith > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 8:22 AM > Cc: 6man Mailing List > Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt> > > > (a) is link local addressing required/supported on these types of > links? > > (b) if so, what is their prefix length? > > (c) if so, how are the IIDs automatically determined/derived? > > (d) if ND is switched off on multi-access technology (e.g. ethernet) > point-to-point links, as the draft says it can be, how are neighbor > cache entries for the remote layer 3 to layer 2 address mappings > created? Manual? Promiscuous mode on the receiving end? > > (e) How is the situation that one end switches off ND but the other end > doesn't handled? > > (f) if ND is switched off, how is DAD and/or NUD performed on the > addresses? Link state can't be assured to be a NUD indicator on > multi-access links, and DAD would be useful to prevent IID collisions > when there is a 50:50 chance of getting it wrong. > > (g) IPV6CP uses IID of zero to indicate an unset IID, to which the peer > will respond with a suggested non-zero IID - > > " If the two interface identifiers are different but the received > interface identifier is zero, a Configure-Nak is sent with a non-zero > interface-identifier value suggested for use by the remote peer. > Such a suggested interface identifier MUST be different from the > interface identifier of the last Configure-Request sent to the peer." > > How is that supposed to now work when /127s create ::0 IIDs? > > > > > > On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 16:34:45 -0800 > Bob Hinden <[email protected]> wrote: > > > All, > > > > This message starts a 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing: > > > > Title : Using 127-bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-Router > Links > > Author(s) : M. Kohno, et al. > > Filename : draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt > > Pages : 9 > > Date : 2010-10-15 > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00 > > > > as a Proposed Standard. Substantive comments and statements of support > for advancing this document should be directed to the mailing list. > Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors. This last call will end > on December 6, 2010. > > > > Regards, > > Bob Hinden & Brian Haberman > > 6MAN Chairs > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > [email protected] > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
