Hi Thomas.
Thomas Narten wrote:
I've reviewed this document and on the whole think it's fine for PS.
But I do have one general concern. This document requires that an
implementation do what in practice, I think might be "difficult" for
some implementations. While that is OK at one level, I fear that some
implementors will do most of this spec, but not all of it. I wonder if
that would be a good outcome.
For example:
* (modifies 7.2.2) When a node has a unicast packet to send from an
Optimistic Address to a neighbor, but does not know the
neighbor's link-layer address, it MUST NOT perform Address
Resolution. It SHOULD forward the packet to a default router on
the link in the hope that the packet will be redirected.
Otherwise it SHOULD buffer the packet until DAD is complete.
will implementations really bother with this? Or will they be tempted
to skip this because it is "too hard" for a particular implementation?
I guess that the forwarding to the router may be difficult as also may
the buffering of the packets (which I guess actually may be part
of the existing tentative address specification).
Neither is actually as important as the first instruction
(the MUST NOT).
What's actually critical here is that NS's aren't sent to multicast
addresses. They contain SLLAOs which will overwrite a peer's NCE
destructively.
So my question is: Is your problem mainly with the SHOULDs or the
MUST NOT?
Greg
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
