> I have one comment though: the document implies that ARP and ND are always > necessary, and that there are always link-layer addresses. That's not true > though. For example, a pure point-to-point link like PPP or sonet doesn't need > ARP or ND. v4-over-v6 will work just fine on such links I think.
From a technical point of view, you're absolutely right. From an editorial point of view, though, the current description aims to be clear and simple (based on the experience from a number of talks I gave about RFC 9229), and I'm not too keen on complicating it with considerations about point-to-point links. Do you feel strongly about this, or can you live with the current text? -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
