Subject: Re: Neighbor Discovery and PPP links

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 10:18:23 +0200

Hemant Singh wrote:
> James Carlson wrote:
> > Hemant Singh wrote:
> > > going to fix the bug when this peer hasn't responded to the NUD
> > > unicast NS? I have already said the source PPP client that issued
> > > the unicast NS is 2461bis complaint.
> >
> > I don't think it should "fix" the problem.  If the peer fails to
> > respond as expected, it has to declare the remote address to be
> > unreachable.
>
> But the peer is reachable in this p2p model !
>
> > I'm not sure why we'd necessarily expect the side that's working
> > right to work around bugs in the other side.  (In fact, it could be
> > argued that this is a good state of affairs: malfunctioning gear
> > may in fact have other bugs, and it's better to detect this early
> > rather than later.)
> >
> > Yes, it'd be possible to carve out a hole in NUD and say that if
> > there's _never_ a response from the peer to any NS for the life of
> > the link, and if the link is specifically point-to-point and
> > without link layer addresses, and if the link-layer is known to
> > perform keepalive- like operation, then the NS sender could
> > "assume" that the address is actually reachable.
>
> Let's not start preparing text for changes to 2461bis for PPP
> unless we can first discuss what to do about the server bug that Dave
> pointed out.

My 2 cents: Maybe the "server" vendor could fix the bug :)

--julien

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------