IPv6 network policies

[Mark Smith]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 18:26:04 +0200
Ole Troan <otroan at employees.org> wrote:

> >> note, that the ping pong problem isn't an IPv6 problem as such, the same problem exists with IPv4.
> > 
> > Absolutely. And for an IPv4 p2p link it seems the most commonly used
> > solution is to use /31 on the link.
> > 
> > For IPv6 it seems to me we have two camps with different philosophies:
> > 
> > - The ping pong problem *should* be solved in IPv6, and it can be solved
> > if the vendors do <X>.
> > 
> > - The ping pong problem doesn't need to be solved in IPv6 since using
> > a /127 works just fine. So let's bless the /127.
> > 
> > Given that 
> > 
> >   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipngwg-p2p-pingpong-00
> > 
> > is from 2001, and nine years later there are still large/important
> > vendors that have this problem - is it likely that it *will* be solved
> > in the manner suggested by this draft?
> 
> the solution in the draft is incorporated into RFC4443. but yes, I share your sentiment.
> 
> there seems to be sub-camp suggesting the use of ND "pseudo" address resolution on point to point links too.
> 

Doesn't the RFC4861 mandate that i.e.

   point-to-point - a link that connects exactly two interfaces.  A
                    point-to-point link is assumed to have multicast
                    capability and a link-local address.


I can't find any text that treats P2P links as a special case and says
you don't need to do ND NS/NA.

Regards,
Mark.