>> > Then you will fail in cases like the one I noted above, and you
> won't be
>> > RFC compliant. RFC2461 requires NUD on _all_ links. (I don't think
>> > anyone is arguing it doesn't.)
>>
>> as long as we also agree that it is perfectly valid to operate p2p
> links
>> with NUD turned off.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ole Troan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 4:16 PM
> To: Dave Thaler
> Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); JINMEI Tatuya / ; James Carlson;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Neighbor Discovery and PPP links
>
> Dave,
>
> >
On 19-jul-2007, at 1:15, Ole Troan wrote:
Then you will fail in cases like the one I noted above, and you
won't be
RFC compliant. RFC2461 requires NUD on _all_ links. (I don't think
anyone is arguing it doesn't.)
as long as we also agree that it is perfectly valid to operate p2p
links
w
Dave,
> Then you will fail in cases like the one I noted above, and you won't be
> RFC compliant. RFC2461 requires NUD on _all_ links. (I don't think
> anyone is arguing it doesn't.)
as long as we also agree that it is perfectly valid to operate p2p links
with NUD turned off.
/ot
Hemant Singh writes:
> Ole and Dave agreed upon: "for PPP links we always know the link-layer
> address". I too agree with that. Why issue an NS to resolve an address
> on such a link when the address is always known?
>
> As for NUD, 2461 NUD sections also say if upper layer protocols can
> determ
All,
On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 12:20 -0400, James Carlson wrote:
>
> The part I support is clarifying the document. I don't think I
> support changing the functionality described in the document.
>
I agree with this sentiment. It is reasonable for an implementation of
IPv6 over PPP to restrict
Hemant Singh (shemant) writes:
> Ole and Dave agreed upon: "for PPP links we always know the link-layer
> address". I too agree with that. Why issue an NS to resolve an address
> on such a link when the address is always known?
>
> As for NUD, 2461 NUD sections also say if upper layer protocols ca
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 writes:
> At Tue, 17 Jul 2007 16:35:33 -0400,
> James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If you're going to somehow omit ND for address resolution, but use it
> > for everything else, what exactly does that look like on the wire, and
> > what support in the existing RFC is
Ole and Dave agreed upon: "for PPP links we always know the link-layer
address". I too agree with that. Why issue an NS to resolve an address
on such a link when the address is always known?
As for NUD, 2461 NUD sections also say if upper layer protocols can
determine reachability, NUD is not invo
