In your letter dated Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:26:22 -0400 you wrote:
>For a p2p link, I think we all agree that Address Resolution is not
>necessary. But what about the other parts?
I think that is where it goes wrong. Yes, it is true that on a p2p link you
don't need the neighbors MAC address because
Some thoughts on this thread...
One problem with the statement/question: are p2p links required to use
Neighbor Discovery, is defining exactly what ND is. ND is actually a
suite of protocols, including:
- Router discovery
- address resolution
- Neighbor Unreachabilty Detection (NUD)
- etc.
F
esolving these issues.
Regards,
Mark.
>
> Pascal
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of
> > Mark Smith
> > Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 12:03 AM
> > To: sth...@nethelp.no
> > Cc: ipv6@ie
?
Pascal
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
> Mark Smith
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 12:03 AM
> To: sth...@nethelp.no
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; dtha...@microsoft.com
> Subject: Re: ND NS/NA support required on
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:25:54 +0200 (CEST)
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > >However, it would seem that several of the major vendors (e.g. Cisco,
> > >Juniper) have interpreted this differently, and chosen not to perform
> > >ND on point-to-point links.
> >
> > Do you mean perform, as in issue the NS
> >However, it would seem that several of the major vendors (e.g. Cisco,
> >Juniper) have interpreted this differently, and chosen not to perform
> >ND on point-to-point links.
>
> Do you mean perform, as in issue the NS request or also in not responding
> to a NS request from the peer?
I have no
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:16:24 +0200 (CEST)
sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > For point-to-point links, which can do multicast trivially, there is no
> > excuse
> > for not doing full ND (unless it is a link between two routers that actually
> > use hellos in the routing protocol to determine whether th
In your letter dated Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:16:24 +0200 (CEST) you wrote:
>> For point-to-point links, which can do multicast trivially, there is no excu
>se
>> for not doing full ND (unless it is a link between two routers that actually
>> use hellos in the routing protocol to determine whether the o
> For point-to-point links, which can do multicast trivially, there is no excuse
> for not doing full ND (unless it is a link between two routers that actually
> use hellos in the routing protocol to determine whether the other side is
> alive).
However, it would seem that several of the major ven
In your letter dated Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:26:47 +0930 you wrote:
>I'm a bit confused by that. My understanding of NUD was that it's main
>function is to ensure that existing entries in the neighbor cache are
>valid. If NUD fails, then the entry is removed from the neighbor cache
>so that next time t
In your letter dated Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:26:47 +0930 you wrote:
>(Is something up with the 6man mailing list? I've had a few replies,
>including one from Philip, none of them have CC'd ipv6@ietf.org, nor
>have I seen any replies via the list, and yet below seems show that a
>copy of Philip's email
v6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > Philip Homburg
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2010 8:02 AM
> > To: Mark Smith
> > Subject: Re: ND NS/NA support required on point-to-point links?
> >
> > In your letter dated Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:03:43
In your letter dated Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:03:43 +0930 you wrote:
>These implementations, instead of performing ND NS/NA, "blindly" forward
>IPv6 packets onto directly onto the point-to-point link, regardless of
>whether the destination address exists. If both ends of the link don't
>perform ND NS/NA
Hi,
I've come across a number of implementations of IPv6 on point-to-point
links which aren't performing ND NS/NA transactions. My interpretation
of the Neighbor Discovery RFC, and, as an example of a link
layer RFC, the IPv6 over PPP RFC, is that they should. I'm looking for
some clarification to
14 matches
Mail list logo
