Dave Thaler wrote:
Ok I understand what you mean now. Once you start trying to prevent all the corner cases, I suspect you end up with something closer to STP, in which case either you don't solve the corner cases and hope for the best, or you do the safe thing which is more complex.
Not so, because STP is trying to work in an arbitrary toplogy, and ndproxy can just turn itself off it the topology is something different than the one it can handle.
I don't mean to discourage fleshing out the P bit idea though, but I don't think it belongs in the existing ND proxy spec at this point.
FWIW I disagree.
The WG charter item was to solve something rather specific in the case when a /64 prefix is provided by the upstream, and not try to provide a "proxy on steroids".
My take is that "proxy on steroids" is not in the IPv6 WG charter.
a) When the WG originally agreed that the draft should be Informational not PS it was because it was agreed there were multiple ways to do it and this draft just documents one way, which documents one type of proxy deployed today works, and that was the reason Brian Carpenter suggested the type change. b) If you have an ARP/ND Proxy that is deployed into an environment with no IPv6 router, STP works whereas the P bit proxy does not (although this is another one of those corner cases which is potentially solvable). Remember one of the listed requirements was "Also work in the absence of any routers."
Which of the scenarios in the document doesn't have a router?
Erik
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
