6to4 and NUD on the pseudo-interface [RE: mech-v2-05pre]

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

I changed the subject line..

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Karen E. Nielsen (AH/TED) wrote:
> Mech-v2 concerns configured bi-directional IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnels.
> These tunnels are point-to-point links in terms of RFC 2461 and
> mech-v02 talks about the behaviour of IPv6 ND mechs, NUD in
> particular, over these tunnels.
> 
> Now, 6to4, RFC 3056 in Section 3.1 refers to RFC 2893 for how NUD
> should be handled on 6to4 pseudo interfaces.

I don't think this is an issue in mech-v2 as 6to4 is borrowing from
the earlier specification and it's not a configured tunnel.

My own interpretation is that you don't run NUD on the 6to4
pseudo-interface, and it would probably be a good idea to even prevent
ND on the link altogether.  When/if we revise the 6to4 spec, that's
something which would need updating.  (Actually I think it might be
useful to start the process for revision rather soon, but there are
more pressing issues to resolve first.)

But Brian may have a different opinion..

> But it still makes me wonder what then is the intend of what is
> being said in section 3.1 of RFC 3056 and how to handle this
> reference now that Section 3.8 of mechv02 explicitly refers to the
> point-to-point link capacity of the tunnel link - ?

RFC 3056 just will refer to an obsoleted RFC until RFC 3056 is 
updated.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings