Markku Savela writes: > > > Yes, I expect address resolution to be done on PPP links, just as is > > described in 2461. I expect it to be done _regardless_ of the > > underlying link technology. > > If link like PPP does not have link layer addresses, there is no point > in doing "address resolution". Nobody should require implemenatation > to do pointless silly things. I believe trying to put SLA option on > NS/NA on a link without link layer addresses is actually violation of > RFC and causes the messages to be ignored.
I wasn't suggesting using the SLLA option. It wouldn't make sense. In fact, the RFC says that you don't include that option if you don't have a link-layer address. What I was suggesting was that you still need to perform neighbor discovery per 2461, even though the peers on a point-to-point link don't have any link layer addresses. > If link like PPP does have link layer addresses, normal ND rules fully > apply. What PPP creates is explicitly a point-to-point link, not point-to- multipoint or some other case. I'm not sure I understand the statement you're making here, as it seems to suggest a situation that doesn't exist. > However, DAD is perfectly sensible. And, any other ND messages that > make sense without SLA are perfectly ok and usable. Sure. What messages, though, _don't_ make sense without SLLA or TLLA options? I think all of them are defined to work that way. Am I missing something? -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
