One quick response first... At Mon, 4 May 2009 16:47:59 -0400, "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shem...@cisco.com> wrote:
> >- Section 1: > > Due to the tricky implication on on-link vs being neighbor (see > > above), if we wanted to keep it (note that I'm against it) the > > following cannot hold: > > > A host only performs address resolution for IPv6 addresses that are > > on-link. > > > because the host would have to perform address resolution for a > > "neighbor" but not necessarily an on-link node. (if we also remove > > the tricky implication, this can be automatically solved:-) > > <hs> > I don't see anything tricky, nor do I see any reason for the > statement above to not hold. ... Whether it's tricky or not (admittedly it's a subjective term), the statement doesn't really hold. Consider the following example: - There is a host X. X has a global address P::X, but has no information about on-link prefixes (for X, only link-local addresses can be considered on-link). Note that even P::/plen is not considered an on-link prefix for X. - There is another host Y with a global address P::Y. Y somehow knows P::X is a neighbor of it. Y also somehow knows the link-layer address of P::X. - Y sends an NS to P::X without link-layer source address option, with the source address being P::Y. - X tries to respond to the NS with NA. The NA must be sent to P::Y. But since X doesn't know the link-layer address of P::Y, it first needs to perform address resolution. On the other hand, according to the revised "on-link" definition, P::Y is not considered "on-link" (for X). --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
