Hi Fred, > 1. What are the issues wrt proxy/relay DAD that would > interfere with its adoption as a standard mechanism? > Almost anything can be made to work, but often the question is what works best or with least changes. In particular, we can make proxy DAD work, probably even with SEND. But I would still prefer an approach that does not require that. Also, if you need proxy DAD, does that mean that link local multicast does not work on the link as expected? > 2. What harmful on-link assumptions could there be for > IPv6 Prefix Information Options that advertise a > shared prefix with 'L=0'? > None that I know of. > 3. Does the RFC1812 "subnet forwarding model" still apply > to IPv6, when there are no IPv6 documents that reference > RFC1812 normatively? > 4. What other non-obvious issues relating to multilink > subnets for shared links need to be observed for NETLMM, > Autoconf and other contexts? > I am not sure I have an answer. But let me ask you a question about something which has been unclear to me during the NETLMM discussion. What is the real-world functionality that you would like to have? Media where this is needed? Employing just one prefix per a number of hosts? Special requirements on what the scope of link local multicast should be?
Also, my understanding of the NETLMM decision is that the working group wants to limit initial design to per-host prefix model, but that this could be extended in the future. As for AUTOCONF, there are no decisions yet, but my main requirement for them has been that they must define their architecture, including addressing and how links are seen from IP. And avoid issues from Dave's draft if possible. The architecture needs to be concrete enough so that we can determine what protocol work is needed for, e.g., prefix allocation, prefix/address uniqueness checking, and gateway selection. --Jari _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
