On Sun, 17 Jul 2011 15:37:00 +0200 Philip Homburg <pch-v6...@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:
> In your letter dated Sun, 17 Jul 2011 22:48:40 +0930 you wrote: > >Actually, that level of change might not be that necessary. If the > >destination address for the Duplicate Address Detection probes was > >changed to the all-nodes rather than the solicited nodes multicast > >address, then all receving nodes could immediately create a neighbor > >cache entry for the new device if one doesn't already exist. From that > >point on, Neighbor Unreachability Detection would then take care of > >maintaining the neighbor cache entry, and deleting it if the host > >disappears. > > And then a router reboots. How does it find out about all the nodes already > there? > Good point, there would need to be a message to solicit addresses. An NS to the all nodes address with an unspecified (::) target address perhaps. So perhaps the changes required would be mostly limited to - - DADs to all-nodes rather than solicited node addresses - nodes receiving the DAD use that to create a neighbor cache entry - NUD takes care of maintaining the validity of those entries - ND NS to all nodes with an unspecified target address solicits NAs from all nodes to cover the router (or any device) reboot situation Anycast addresses would be an issue because DAD isn't performed by them. Perhaps a special "DAD" could be performed for them which causes the receiving devices to record their presence, but a normal NS/NA transaction for the anycast address is triggered if the anycast address is attempted to be used and hasn't been fully resolved. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
