On Thursday 30 October 2003 01:43, Soliman Hesham wrote: > > I quote yourself on a previous mail on this thread: > > > > "The problems of this assumption are discussed in section 3 > > of Alain's draft. The draft suggests that this assumption > > should be removed from ND specs. Here is the suggestion: > > [snipped but it's read as..."remove" and "remove"...] > > This seems like a reasonable suggestion, any objections?" > > > > As I've already said, I think that on-link communications might > > be a useful thing to have. > > => Please specify a scenario that would not work > if we remove this statement. > > The only one I know that wouuld not work is the one > I mentioned earlier: one link, _no_ default router > and different hosts are _manually_ configured with different > prefixes. If you want that to work then configure > the hosts with the same prefix. That way they all > know that they're on the same link. If you know > of something else that would break by removing this > statement please describe it.
AFAIK, nothing else would break (fortunately). I've already got an scenario, which is what you are trying to break. Isn't that enough ? Of course I can configure _manually_ the hosts , as well as configuring the IP address and the default route (oops...why do people use DHCP ?) IMO (and I'm not humble), I see that: "Impact on destination address selection" and "Address resolution delays." Are issues that could be fixed in other ways. I will write a draft about how to solve these 2 issues without killing the on-link assuption (somethig like "draft-....-counter-onlinkassumption-00.txt"), though I can not tell you when it will be ready. Besides, if you know more issues, I will be glad to hear about them. Regards. -- JFRH -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
