Hemant Singh wrote: > James Carlson wrote: > > Hemant Singh wrote: > > > 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. > > 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. > > 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.
My 2 cents: Maybe the "server" vendor could fix the bug :) --julien -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
