In your letter dated Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:59:16 +0400 you wrote: >1. Absence of ND on p2p links is logical. There is no need for ND. There are only two neighbors. We always know L2 destination address, why should we use >any mechanisms to resolve it ?
Because, as is clearly demonstrated by the call for a /127, you don't know if the address you are forwarding to is actually associated with the peer's interface. ND not only provides the link layer address but also verifies that the address is actually there. >2. You are right, "forward packets back to the link they are coming from" is >not normal behaviour for p2p links. But only for P2P(not for Ethernet p2p >"face-to-face"). >Unfortunately, this behaviour is normal for a lot of vendors because of >specificity of hardware forwarding. So using /127 looks like a good solution >for this problem. I'm not against using /127s. I'm not aware of anything that uses that router anycast address, and that seems to be the only technical reason against /127. But I think it is everybody's interest if router vendors would provide an option of not forwarding packets back on links they came from. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
