IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6man] New Version Notification for draft-nordmark-6man-impatient-nud-00.txt

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops@u-1.phicoh.com> Mon, 23 May 2011 20:33 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b2B3A6689@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB1E2E069C for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 13:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id O5mgVcsTna-v for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2011 13:33:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBC91E0819 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2011 13:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #55) id m1QObow-0001hFC; Mon, 23 May 2011 22:33:46 +0200
Message-Id: <m1QObow-0001hFC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>
Subject: Re: [6man] New Version Notification for draft-nordmark-6man-impatient-nud-00.txt
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b2B3A6689@u-1.phicoh.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 23 May 2011 22:03:50 +0200 ." <4DDABDA6.2070705@globis.net>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 22:33:46 +0200
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 24 May 2011 01:16:12 -0700
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 20:33:53 -0000

In your letter dated Mon, 23 May 2011 22:03:50 +0200 you wrote:
>e.g. 2. Say Node A (end host) declares node B (router) unreachable 
>locally, but node B (router) is still up and running but has not yet 
>timed out Node A.

I don't think I understand your model of how a router works.

To a large extent both directions are independent. A host has to get a packet
to any default router, and uses ND to figure out where they are and whether
they are reachable.

A router uses ND to find where a host is. If ND fails, then the router simply
cannot deliver the packet.

Both failures are independent.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email