Hesham Soliman wrote:
Hi Ralph and Thomas,
Just updating the doc for final (hopefully!) submission. A couple of
conclusions from the discussion below are unlear to me. So your
responses will help me clarify the new document.
Hi Hesham, please allow me to interfere, splitting the thread to a
different topic. I do not give an oppinion in this message about the
original message's comments.
Do you or co-authors think it may be useful to add several
clarifications in the 2461bis with respect to how ND would run on
point-to-point links?
For example, the draft says multicast 'can' be trivially provided on
point to point links, and interfaces 'can' be assigned link-local
addresses. But does this mean that a host should do a MLD JOIN on a
point to point link. Does this mean that a packet sent to a link-local
multicast address sent by one end should be received by the other w/ or
w/o doing MLD JOIN. Does this mean the node should join the
solicited-node multicast address (derived from its IID) when over a
point-to-point link?
Another aspect is the use of S/TLLAOs on links with no link-layer
headers, typically point to point. For example, is it mandatory to
_not_ use S/TLLAOs if there's no link-layer header, or should they be
used instead.
For example this text:
Target link-layer address The link-layer address for the target,
i.e., the sender of the advertisement. This option MUST be included
on link layers that have addresses when responding to multicast
solicitations. When responding to a unicast Neighbor Solicitation
this option SHOULD be included.
First, should a NS over point to point link be unicasted or multicasted,
in terms of its dst address. Second, it says this option MUST be
included when link-layer has addresses. It doesn't say it shouldn't be
included if the link-layer doesn't have addresses. I think it should
either say that or its contrary, but not be silent on this.
Finally, link-layer addresses have a tight relationship with what goes
in the last 64bits of an address. On ppp (and maybe others?) links
there's no link-layer address but there's means to have something go
into the last 64bits. So could we consider that IID to be a link-layer
address.
Maybe no: because the Ethernet link-layer protocol never uses an IID for
its inner addressing.
Maybe yes: because on ppp it's the link-layer (or 2.5 layer IPv6CP)
negotiates this IID. Besides, putting an IID in an SLLAO can help make
NS/NA work over multicast point-to-point links when no link-layer header.
What do you, co-authors and WG members think, am I completely off-mark.
Thanks,
Alex
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
