IPv6 network policies

[Mark Smith]

Hi Ole,

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 09:56:29 +0200
Ole Troan <otroan at employees.org> wrote:

> Mark,
> 
>  [...]
> 
> >> 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?
> 
> yes, I believe so. it hasn't gone to the IESG yet.
> 

Good, I'll come up with something.

> >> 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?
> 
> yep, I also think 6man is the best place.
> 

Ok, thanks.

> cheers,
> Ole
> 

Regards,
Mark.