> (removing other WGs than NETLMM) > >> The default behavior (see >> Section 5.2) when sending a packet to an address for which no >> information is known about the on-link status of the address is to >> forward the packet to a default router; >> >> i.e. send packets to the default router. >> > > This does not prevent a node from sending an NS for an address that the node > suspects is on link, even if the prefix indicates that it might not be, and > receiving a reply, then routing directly to that node. It also does not > prevent a node from sending an NS for a link local address that it suspects > is on the link and receiving a reply, then routing directly, even though the > global address looks as if isn't. It is basically up to the implementation > whether this would work or not. This could cause applications to break if > they make the assumption that they can do this, then they are used on a > NETLMM network. The result would be an interoperability problem, which is > what IETF standards are supposed to prevent.
Yes, an implementation that ignores the default behavior and tries to contact a peer whose on-link status is unkown via direct NS/NA could learn that the peer is an on-link neighbor for the moment. But, it has no guarantee that the peer will remain on-link for even one second beyond the receipt of the NA. Ignoring the default behavior in this case seems like risky practice in any environment and not particular to NETLMM. Are you aware of implementations that do this? Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ netlmm mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
