Le 27/03/2012 17:31, Ted Lemon a écrit :
In the particular case of default route, the existing mechanism to
achieve this is ND. This has the optional feature to communicate
the MAC address of the default router at the same time. This
saves on the number of messages exchanged (instead of 4 messages,
only 2 are used).
In environments where this is a significant amount of additional
traffic, presumably ND will be the preferred mechanism for
delivering the default route.
In lightweight environments, and this is a MIF-ed router not host, it
would only run DHCP and maybe no ND (only use its data structures).
This is so to have only one software and protocol to obtain route,
address, prefix and prefix for further away. ND would be superfluous.
Similarly, work was and still is ongoing about doing same with ND not DHCP.
In the same manner, it would be useful to have DHCPv6 way of
communicating the default route to add the MAC address of the IP
address of the default router. This would save on the number of
messages exchanged.
I think this is an unnecessary optimization. What's the use case
where both ND is not preferred, and bandwidth is so constrained as
to make this a problem?
As above.
Alex
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
