Re: comments on draft-ietf-shim6-failure-detection-06.txt

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>]

Hi,

Thanks for your comments. Some further
discussion inline:
> -Page6
>       Note 2: In theory, it would also be possible for hosts to learn
>       about routing failures for a particular selected source prefix, if
>       only suitable protocols for this purpose existed.  Some proposals
>       in this space have been made, see, for instance
>       [I-D.bagnulo-shim6-addr-selection] and
>       [I-D.huitema-multi6-addr-selection], but none have been
>       standardized to date.
>
> This paragraph shows [I-D.bagnulo-shim6-addr-selection] and
> [I-D.huitema-multi6-addr-selection] are two unstandardized proposals
> for local routing  failure detection.
Right.
> Then, I think the neighbour unreachability detection in [RFC2461] MAY
> be a standardized proposal for this purpose.
The section talks earlier about using NUD to your
default router to determine if the address is locally
OK. What this does not help with is failures further
away. As you point out, there are no standardized
proposals for hosts being aware of such failures.

So, yes, NUD is indeed usable in this context, for
a limited part of the problem. But this is what we
already have in the draft.

--Jari