Le 21 sept. 2010 à 14:55, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit : > On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Hesham Soliman wrote: > >> => Sorry I missed that email and a few others. But you're trying to optimise >> something that already exists? I don't see the benefit of removing code at >> the expense of having less reliable networks. I say less reliable because ND >> allows for detecting changing conditions on the link without having to rely >> on a central server. Doesn't look like a worthwhile activity IMHO. > > I don't want to remove code in the end nodes, I want to simplify the > implementation of filtering in L2 devices in the ISP access network. > > Most vendors do not have this support yet for IPv6. > > You might not think this is worthwile because you don't have this deployment > model in your network. That doesn't mean it's not worthwile to ISPs with > millions of subscribers who use an L2 ETTH deployment model.
It seems to be too late anyway: - A LAN without ND/RA wouldn't support currently existing hosts - A host without ND/RA wouldn't work on currently existing LANs Not preserving backward compatibility would IMHO be a very bad idea. Regards, RD > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
