JAmes, yes, it's a solution in search of a problem. There are problems
in search of solutions too although not so apparent now. For example ND
over tunnel interfaces, etc.
For below items: (1) yes, IID as ll addresses may break legacy systems
but then one could define new option Target 'Virtual
Alexandru Petrescu writes:
> If a ppp peer negotiates an Interface ID and puts it in the Neighbour
> Cache attached to the ppp0 entry, won't break anything. When displaying
> the NC the entry simply won't show up empty.
Yes, it will break something.
- Such a system will send Neighbor Advertise
James Carlson wrote:
Alexandru Petrescu writes:
Finally, link-layer addresses have a tight relationship with
what goes in the last 64bits of an address. On ppp (and maybe
others?) links there's no link-layer address but there's means
to have something go into the last 64bits. So could we
c
Alexandru Petrescu writes:
> >> Finally, link-layer addresses have a tight relationship with what
> >> goes in the last 64bits of an address. On ppp (and maybe others?)
> >> links there's no link-layer address but there's means to have
> >> something go into the last 64bits. So could we consid
Hesham Soliman wrote:
Hi Hesham, please allow me to interfere, splitting the thread to a
different topic. I do not give an oppinion in this message about
the original message's comments.
Do you or co-authors think it may be useful to add several
clarifications in the 2461bis with respect t
> Hi Hesham, please allow me to interfere, splitting the thread to a
> different topic. I do not give an oppinion in this message about the
> original message's comments.
>
> Do you or co-authors think it may be useful to add several
> clarifications in the 2461bis with respect to how ND
Hesham Soliman wrote:
Hi Ralph and Thomas,
Just updating the doc for final (hopefully!) submission. A couple of
conclusions from the discussion below are unlear to me. So your
responses will help me clarify the new document.
Hi Hesham, please allow me to interfere, splitting the thread to a