Thanks for the explanation. That's still too much a change IMHO. Regards, RDRD
Le 21 sept. 2010 à 17:45, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit : > On Tue, 21 Sep 2010, Rémi Després wrote: > >> It seems to be too late anyway: >> - A LAN without ND/RA wouldn't support currently existing hosts > > Why not? DHCP could populate the neighbour table with very long lifetime? > > The only change I see would be for the operation of DHCPv6 to always run if > there isn't any response to RS and no RA is seen. > > Perhaps some minor changes need to be made to allow for populating the > neighbour table statically (and set the timeouts to whatever is in the DHCP > lease), but I don't see this as a major change in the IPv6 stack. > > You're right, this doesn't work on unmodified hosts with standards that > exists today, but the changes needed should be minor... > >> - A host without ND/RA wouldn't work on currently existing LANs > > That's not what I'm proposing. I'm not talking about ripping out anything. > > -- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
