I agree. You want this "minor" change to be done in all host stacks. At this stage IMO it's way too late. I'm dealing with some vendors now and I don't hear any complaints about supporting ND in their routers/switches, that's anecdotal but we didn't see this on the mailing list either. I can't see how ND is a show-stopper or even delaying any router vendor.
Hesham On 22/09/10 6:45 AM, "Rémi Després" <remi.desp...@free.fr> wrote: > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
