James, Please see in line below with "<hs>".
-----Original Message----- From: James Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 12:42 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: Ole Troan (otroan); [EMAIL PROTECTED]; JINMEI Tatuya / ????; ipv6@ietf.org; Dave Thaler Subject: RE: Neighbor Discovery and PPP links Hemant Singh (shemant) writes: > I am saying when the M bit is clear, then a node cannot acquire an > address using DHCPv6. However, I agree with you DHCPv6 is much better > alternative than PPP. > > Now, I'd like to focus the discussion back to how will the PPP peer > (which is a server) Nit: PPP doesn't define "client" or "server." It's peer-to-peer. <hs> I know PPP is a p2p model. I was using the term server to refer to the server bug in the PPP Interop problem that Dave explained. This is what Dave said: [Actually after some more investigation, I think I understand the source of the interoperability issue. The core issue is that some PPP servers actually handle multiple PPP connections to different clients via a common interface. Hence from the server's perspective, it's not a point-to-point link, but rather an NBMA link. From the client's perspective, the client thinks it's a point-to-point link, and there's no way to discover that the server thinks otherwise.] > going to fix the bug when this peer hasn't responded to the NUD > unicast NS? I have already said the source PPP client that issued the > unicast NS is 2461bis complaint. I don't think it should "fix" the problem. If the peer fails to respond as expected, it has to declare the remote address to be unreachable. <hs> But the peer is reachable in this p2p model ! I'm not sure why we'd necessarily expect the side that's working right to work around bugs in the other side. (In fact, it could be argued that this is a good state of affairs: malfunctioning gear may in fact have other bugs, and it's better to detect this early rather than later.) Yes, it'd be possible to carve out a hole in NUD and say that if there's _never_ a response from the peer to any NS for the life of the link, and if the link is specifically point-to-point and without link layer addresses, and if the link-layer is known to perform keepalive- like operation, then the NS sender could "assume" that the address is actually reachable. <hs> Let's not start preparing text for changes to 2461bis for PPP unless we can first discuss what to do about the server bug that Dave pointed out. Hemant That seems like needless complexity to me, though. -- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
