Re: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

Hello, On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 15:45 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote: RAs aren't used for reachability we have ND/NUD for that. NUD (RS-RA) becomes useless when the host is in dormant mode and reachable via a paging channel. To initiate NUD, the host needs to wake up and send RS. The router's

Re: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

RAs aren't used for reachability we have ND/NUD for that. Once again, NUD (as I understand it, and the way it is defined in 2461) is not based on RS/RA exchanges. It is based on NS/NA exchanges. Thus, I do not at all understand the rest of your note. Further, based on what you wrote below, I

(no subject)

IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6

Re: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 09:35 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote: RAs aren't used for reachability we have ND/NUD for that. Once again, NUD (as I understand it, and the way it is defined in 2461) is not based on RS/RA exchanges. It is based on NS/NA exchanges. Thus, I do not at all understand the

RE: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

I wasn't assuming this. NUD checks the traffic channel in both directions. That's OK. But after the NUD procedure, the host enters dormant mode and becomes reachable via another channel: the paging channel that wasn't tested. Consequently, the following scenario is possible:

RE: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 08:22 -0700, Soliman, Hesham wrote: I wasn't assuming this. NUD checks the traffic channel in both directions. That's OK. But after the NUD procedure, the host enters dormant mode and becomes reachable via another channel: the paging channel that wasn't

Re: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

Let me be more specific. It will not convince 3GPP and Wimax Forum that periodic, multicast RAs should be deployed in their network. 3GPP2 already does not use RA beacons for Mobile IPv4. jak - Original Message - From: Soliman, Hesham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: James Kempf

Re: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

Pars, 3GPP2, which deploys Mobile IPv4, has declined to use periodic RAs as beacons for their FAs. In general, the problem is that cellular operators don't want to use traffic channels for IP signaling that they don't think they need. They pay lots of money for the spectrum, and they charge

Re: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

Erik, Couple points. Most cellular networks don't have more than one active last hop router, so the issue of multiple routers doesn't apply. Regarding the number of packets, the question is over what period of time are the packets sent. If the router needs to emulate multicast, then the M*N

RE: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

Hello, I couldn't understand why NUD is the responsibility of IP, but the other is not. So, why NUD isn't the link-layer's responsibility? = Because of two reasons: - Some link layers fon't have this connection-oriented service and therefore do not do NUD. - NUD tests reachability

RE: Proposal to change aspects of Neighbor Discovery

Let me be more specific. It will not convince 3GPP and Wimax Forum that periodic, multicast RAs should be deployed in their network. = Well, I don't think that's specific, but obviously you do. 3GPP *already* defined the use of IPv6 and already recommends setting the lifetime to a max.