IPv6 network policies

[Mark Smith]

Hi Ole,

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:53:02 +0200
Ole Troan <otroan at employees.org> wrote:

> Mark,
> 
> > Well I took this off-list as Ole requested two weeks ago. As I spent at
> > least 45 minutes on it, and haven't got any response, I thought I'd
> > send it through to the list, so that I'll at least get some value from
> > the time I spent on it. Hopefully it is of some use to others. I think
> > it very clearly justifies why P2P links should have NS/NAs performed -
> > to test address assignment and availability.
> 
> 
> so you didn't get this reply from April 13?
> 

I've just checked my inbox, and it seems that I did. It was unread, so
I'm not sure how I missed it - I have 94 unread emails currently, and
it seems that threading of replies in my inbox is hiding ones like this.
My sincere apologies for missing it.

> From: 	Ole Troan <otroan at employees.org>
> Subject: 	Re: IPv6 network policies
> Date: 	April 13, 2010 0:45:29  GMT+02:00
> To: 	Mark Smith <nanog at 85d5b20a518b8f6864949bd940457dc124746ddc.nosense.org>
> 
> Mark,
> 
> [...]
> 
<snip - to offlist it>


> yes, we should probably add that requirement. it has passed WG last
> call, but let me see if we can get it in. do you have proposed text?

Is there still an opportunity for this?

> 
> as I said on the list, if you want to change the behaviour of IPv6 to always use ND before communicating to on-link nodes on any type of link, then you need to write a draft. plan to?
> I would not object to such a solution.
> 

I'm happy to if it is necessary. My interpretation though, because I
can't find any 'special casing' of P2P links in the RFCs, is that that
is how things are supposed to be. I presume 6man be the best place to
get a determination on that before I spend time developing a draft?


Regards,
Mark.