IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Wireless ND was: about violation of standards

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 29 April 2019 12:21 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 D2E1D120315 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 05:21:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bbxhso-JokSn for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 05:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bugle.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD5241200A1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 05:21:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [173.38.220.62]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bugle.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 538A1FECBF9F; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:21:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 148DB1446A20; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 14:21:20 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
Subject: Re: Wireless ND was: about violation of standards
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR11MB35658F481A58E4F78D5B6648D8390@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 14:21:19 +0200
Cc: Philip Homburg <pch-ipv6-ietf-6@u-1.phicoh.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6080EB74-96C2-46ED-9411-16C9EBB32EA5@employees.org>
References: <bb7f7606-2adf-e669-8bcd-e41f17800782@gmail.com> <CAJE_bqd9frqX5-yeVPj8MYXpZ4737HqK1gmfD9cQV3A-Ea5HrQ@mail.gmail.com> <6bd5db47-408a-727e-5c13-f34a3465f986@si6networks.com> <CAJE_bqfTLqRbLp4fLu2ASZuZ+4G5c2G+RXkO92kXfLgPTqBnng@mail.gmail.com> <EEF00EA7-2AAF-403F-99AD-1D53ED18E8B3@cisco.com> <47631828-121F-402D-8165-969684C1101B@employees.org> <MN2PR11MB35655B36540829AEE5275964D8230@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <1066F69A-824F-4D6D-B221-8EFBAD15E15A@employees.org> <018c407a-b127-8724-d1ee-e19e3b084a60@gmail.com> <CABNhwV1jWHc1SMm=-xX0Oo5V4bo4VQBeQ5-CztJhP3y9006HRw@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1904240659270.3490@uplift.swm.pp.se> <602A5CC5-170D-4E67-8907-A4D26606DB03@cisco.com> <m1hKoNd-0000IQC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <36910145-BFD1-40D6-B62A-B8EC70B692F6@employees.org> <MN2PR11MB35658F481A58E4F78D5B6648D8390@MN2PR11MB3565.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/abKsdYPOzbbuXpBpraUJXVywIQE>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 29 Apr 2019 12:21:26 -0000

>> That was my thinking too. If you have a set of p2p links, you don't need very
>> little of ND.

You need very little of ND. Was what I tried to say.
E.g. address resolution wouldn't be needed.

Cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email