> -----Original Message----- > From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shem...@cisco.com] > > Please see a revised NEW paragraph below and let us know if > this is more > clear. Basically we meant to say that when sending an NA in > response to > an NS, the host does not use the Conceptual Sending Algorithm which > means that if the NA response cannot be sent out because the ND-cache > doesn't have an entry to the NA destination, then the host issues an > address resolution to resolve the destination.
------------------------ > IPv6 packets sent using the Conceptual Sending Algorithm > as described > in [RFC4861] only trigger address resolution for IPv6 > addresses that > are on-link. Packets to any other address are sent to a default > router. > If there is no default router, then the node should send an ICMPv6 > Destination Unreachable indication as specified in > [RFC4861] - more > details are provided in the Host Behavior and Rules > section. (Note > that [RFC4861] changed the behavior when the Default Router List is > empty. > The behavior in the old version of Neighbor Discovery > [RFC2461] was > different when there were no default routers.) Note that ND is > scoped > to a single link. All Neighbor Solicitation responses are > assumed to > > be sent out the same interface on which the corresponding > query was > received without using the Conceptual Sending Algorithm. ------------------------- Hemant, Okay, sounds better to me. Now these sentences: (Note that [RFC4861] changed the behavior when the Default Router List is empty. The behavior in the old version of Neighbor Discovery [RFC2461] was different when there were no default routers.) I would either delete those sentences, or change the second sentence to read: "In the old version of Neighbor Discovery [RFC2461], if the Default router List is empty, rather than sending the ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable indication, the RFC2461 node assumed that the destination was on-link." In other words, I would explain the difference if you're going to bother mentioning that there is a difference. Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
