Re: ND-proxy applicability and loop-prevention

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko at kolumbus.fi>]

Christian Huitema wrote:

> The routing or spanning tree solution is the most transparent to the
> hosts, since it does not change any byte in the ND packets. However,
> transparency may not be entirely desired, since SEND requires being
> fairly explicit about relays. 
Yes. In fact, an explicit marker telling that there indeed
was a proxy would be quite useful for SEND.

Fred Templin wrote:

> In other words, we need something like the experimental protocols
> coming from the MANET wg (e.g., AODV, DSR, OLSR, TBRPF).
> Even better would be a unified mechanism that combines the best
> aspects of on-demand and reactive protocols. 
Hmm.... I thought the idea of ND proxies was to avoid a complicated
L3 device. If we need something like a routing protocol, maybe
its time to pull out the proxy thing and replace it with a real
L3 device?

--Jari


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------