I guess RFC 4861 doesn't go so far as to require that:
"Because unicast Neighbor Solicitations are not required to include a
Source Link-Layer Address, it is possible that a node sending a
solicited Neighbor Advertisement does not have a corresponding link-
layer address for its neighb
At Mon, 04 May 2009 14:12:13 -0400,
Brian Haberman wrote:
> This message starts a 2-week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on
> advancing:
>
> Title : IPv6 Subnet Model: the Relationship between
> Links and Subnet Prefixes
> Author(s) : H. Singh, et al.
>
At Tue, 5 May 2009 11:16:02 -0400,
"Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" wrote:
>
> > It's of course unicast (note the "to P::X"). BTW I don't
> > understand this part: "the L2 link-layer address of Y is available
> > to X when X receives the unicast NUD message." Why is this
> > ensured? For example, X may
> It's of course unicast (note the "to P::X"). BTW I don't understand this
> part: "the L2 link-layer address of Y is available to X when X receives the
> unicast NUD message." Why is this ensured? For example, X may have just
> been rebooted and its neighbor cache may be empty.
That's becaus
At Tue, 5 May 2009 10:11:33 -0400,
"Hemant Singh (shemant)" wrote:
> Sorry, I don't consider your example as valid because there is at
> least one step in your example's sequence of events that is invalid.
> That step is mentioned below in quotes
>
> "- Y sends an NS to P::X without link-layer s
Jinmei,
Sorry, I don't consider your example as valid because there is at least one
step in your example's sequence of events that is invalid. That step is
mentioned below in quotes
"- Y sends an NS to P::X without link-layer source address option, with
the source address being P::Y."
Accor
