On Mar 29, 2012, at 1:12 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Allow me a quick reply here. There are several active RFC proposals > recent at IETF that simply don't run ND. Or, how to better say - if ND > is present it is completely ignored, being replaced by something else > claimed better than ND for some issue at hand. > > This is the case for example in the RoLL (RPL protocol), 6lowpan (IPv6 > over header compression) and more. If I understand correctly, CoAP > considers the sensor node to be an 'IPv6 node' but not necessarily run > ND. If it did, then ICMP could be used without intermediary, instead of > CoAP.
There are several parts of ND used for different purposes, and I think that might be the source of some confusion here... 6lowpan does include a definition for how ND works over IEEE 802.15.14 networks. There are some environments where ND is not used for address autoconfiguration, where duplicate address detection (DAD) is unnecessary, or where there are other means of determining whether neighbors are reachable or not. In those environments, those parts of ND are sometimes unnecessary. That doesn't mean that it is okay for a general purpose IPv6 implementation to omit ND. I don't understand what it would even mean for ROLL (which is routing protocol) or COAP (which is an HTTP compression protocol) to "use ND", so I don't know how to comment on those. > Somebody said that if node is not implementing ICMPv6 > Redirect then it wouldnt't be accepted as an IPv6 node. I think this is something you may have taken away from a conversation with me... You said that you have an IPv6 implementation that can only store one default route (no default router list) and cannot store any other routes. I told you that if you shipped that stack in a commercial product, customers would be very unhappy with you because: (1) is not acceptable (in the market) to ship and IPv6 node that can't fall back to a second default router if the preferred one goes down, and (2) it is not acceptable to ship an IP node that can't create a new route in response to an ICMP redirect. That said, I believe it is also true that such a node would not be RFC compliant, because IPv6 nodes are required to implement ICMPv6. Margaret _______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
