=> Fairly
yes. The meaning is end-host is going to get a IPv6 global address
through the established tunnel.
[Karen E. Nielsen (AH/TED)] There are no
goals as to how exactly the end-host should
acquire the address - it is not a _goal_ that
the address must be allocated through the established tunnel, but I
know
of many solutions that do it that
way.
>section 6.8
>=> does NUD (in section 3.8 in RFC
2893) helps? or does it help NOT having it for sake of saving Radio
power?
>[Karen E. Nielsen (AH/TED)] NUD should be OK
Radio power wise. The reason NUD is not explicitly >referred to in Section
6.8, but unicast NS/NA exchanges are, is that by NUD one tends to understand
the >full mechanism described in Section 7.3 of RFC 2461, and this requires
link-local multicast support - >which we do not explicitly assume/require.
Further there may be issues with NUD if it is required to be >performed by
the tunnel servers, as NUD on routers is susceptible to DoS
attacks.
=>Thats why i stated
section 3.8 in RFC 2893. Cant we make it that explicit?
I am trying to see if
we can make zeroconf fall in-line with whats stated in RFC 2893 which is
about "Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 hosts and Routers".
[Karen E. Nielsen (AH/TED)] No we can not use
RFC2893, well perhaps we could have, but RFC 2893 is in the process
of
being deprecated - and the corresponding section,
Section 3.8, in
provide this - do you
?
Thanks,
Karen