Subject: Any reason for configuring several LL@ on a given interface ?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:13:22 +0200

Hi,
Just for my clarification.

Is there any reasonable usage of configuring *several*
Link Local Addresses on a given IPv6 interface ?

Thanks,
Robert

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Ignatios Souvatzis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:26:53 +0200

> Link Local Addresses on a given IPv6 interface ?

Some virtual server of some kind?

	-is

---

From: Quality Quorum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 11:33:55 -0400

> Some virtual server of some kind?

what about routers? Can we expect router having multiple attachments to
the same link ?

Thanks,

Aleksey

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 19:11:39 +0300 (EEST)

> what about routers? Can we expect router having multiple attachments to

As a bridge between Secure Neighbor Discovery and Neighbor Discovery, I'd 
say yes.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Quality Quorum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 13:13:37 -0400

> As a bridge between Secure Neighbor Discovery and Neighbor Discovery, I'd

What is the reasonable assumption about the number of attachments?
Is it 2 (one for discovery and one for secure discovery)? Is it 1000?

Thanks,

Aleksey

---

From: Shannon -jj Behrens <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:42:07 -0700

> what about routers? Can we expect router having multiple attachments to

Multiple attachments would = multiple interfaces, correct?  The question was
about having multiple addresses on one interface.  Perhaps I'm missing 
something.

Best Regards,
-jj

-- 
Hacker is to software engineer as 
Climbing Mt. Everest is to building a Denny's there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Quality Quorum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 14:19:46 -0400

> about having multiple addresses on one interface.  Perhaps I'm missing

Say, I have a router which is attached to link aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd
with two interfaces, e.g

aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd:0000:1111:2222:3333 and
aaaa:bbbb:cccc:dddd:4444:5555:6666:7777

I do not think that it makes much sense, however, I am wondering how
common this configuration could be ?

Thanks,

Aleksey

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 13:43:34 +0300 (EEST)

On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Derek Fawcus wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 07:11:39PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> So how's that going to work (maybe I should catch up on my send reading)?

Not necessarily, but that's one option.  If ND and SEND nodes are to
communicate, that seems like the only way.

The SEND protocol is still in the works, but one draft is out.
 
> Given that redirects require routers to have one LL address on a link in
> order to work.  

Not necessarily -- just as long as different sets of hosts consistently
use a specific LL address you should be fine, I think.

E.g., for SEND nodes, use LL_1; for ND nodes, use LL.

> A router with multiple LL addresses on a given link would
> have to look like multiple 'logical' routers.

In a way, I think -- but that doesn't change the fact that the router 
does have to support them.  Of course, the implementation might do that 
using sub-interfaces or the like -- don't know if it'd work.

---

From: Derek Fawcus <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:50:03 +0100

> E.g., for SEND nodes, use LL_1; for ND nodes, use LL.

Consider one router redirecting a host to a better on link router.

It would seem that you're placing a requirement that all routers
maintain knowledge of all nodes on a link that are SEND capable?

OK - time to read the current send draft,  before I speculate further.

DF

---

From: Derek Fawcus <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 10:55:15 +0100

Given that redirects require routers to have one LL address on a link in
order to work.  A router with multiple LL addresses on a given link would
have to look like multiple 'logical' routers.

DF