[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ND-proxy applicability in Unmanaged [Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-unmaneval-01.txt]

To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Subject: Re: ND-proxy applicability in Unmanaged [Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-unmaneval-01.txt]
From: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:34:35 -0800 (PST)
Cc: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, jonne.soininen@nokia.com, huitema@microsoft.com
In-reply-to: "Your message with ID" <Pine.LNX.4.44.0403201704150.7154-100000@netcore.fi>
Reply-to: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>

> Luckily enough ND-proxy is not going to be IETF standard, but
> Informational :).  Nobody has bothered to document (different flavors
> of) proxy-ARP, but that's there in the similar way as well -- without
> spanning tree, and seems to be working whereever it's used.

Sorry, I missed the last sentence.

The proxy arp implementations I know of decrement ttl.
Are there proxy arp implementations that do not decrement ttl?

Can't compare that with ndproxy which doesn't decrement the hop count.

Erik

References:
- Re: ND-proxy applicability in Unmanaged [Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-unmaneval-01.txt]
  - From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>

Prev by Date: Re: ND-proxy applicability in Unmanaged [Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-unmaneval-01.txt]
Next by Date: Re: Recent navel gazing - we need to stop wasting cycles on FUD
Previous by thread: Re: ND-proxy applicability in Unmanaged [Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-unmaneval-01.txt]
Next by thread: Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-unmaneval-01.txt
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread