IPv6 network policies

[Mark Smith]

On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:41:49 +1200
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2010-04-11 11:12, Mark Smith wrote:
> ...
> > 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.
> > 

Actually this is the text I meant to quote:

     point-to-point - Neighbor Discovery handles such links just like
                      multicast links.  (Multicast can be trivially
                      provided on point-to-point links, and interfaces
                      can be assigned link-local addresses.)

     multicast      - Neighbor Discovery operates over multicast capable
                      links as described in this document.

The preceding ND RFC (RFC2461) was more explicit:

     point-to-point - Neighbor Discovery handles such links just like
                      multicast links.  (Multicast can be trivially
                      provided on point to point links, and interfaces
                      can be assigned link-local addresses.)  Neighbor
                      Discovery should be implemented as described in
                      this document.

     multicast      - Neighbor Discovery should be implemented as
                      described in this document.



> > 
> > 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.
> 
> E.g., when using PPP, all IP6CP [RFC5072] does is negotiate an
> interface identifier for each end. After that you create a link-local
> address at each end and then treat the Pt2Pt link just like any other
> link to get a global address. Nothing special.
> 
>   Brian