Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
>>So, as a short term solution, I'd like to suggest to use ARP,
>>not ND, over WLAN.
> That is one way.
>
> In fact there are many ways.
Of course. However, as a short term solution, we don't have much
options.
Note that the solution should be conservative enough already
verified to work.
> For instance, a simple one is
Whice one? Short term one or long term one?
> to have APs proxy ND for their associated
> nodes.
APs can't. APs have no information on IP addresses of the
associated nodes merely because they are associated.
Considering that the essential role of ND is to find such
information, you need yet additional ND-like mechanism,
here.
> Basically they forward the multicast ND messages from the
> associated nodes to the wire only, and in any case answer multicast ND
> on behalf of their associated nodes.
Too bad.
The essential problem that RA is not received reliably is
unaddressed.
> It may be a little more troublesome then it looks; but it shows that
> there's at least one way to go that's not changing things as
> dramatically as Ohta-san's proposal.
ND is the dramatical change now proven not to work well sometimes.
ARP is, to some extent, proven to work.
> An other aspect is that 802.11 is not THE radio model.
Right.
See my response to Christian on active and sector antennas.
> Should we make
> each radio a new link type for IP?
Wrong question.
We need separate mechanism for each link type not necessarily
radio. We may or may not reuse existing mechanisms.
> Or is there a common link type that
> we can converge on by providing an adaptation layer (2.5) ?
Wrong question.
We can't say, in advance, that some mechanism work for yet
unknown link type.
Masataka Ohta
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
