RIPng

[dhaskin@baynetworks.com]

> From:          Steve Deering <deering@parc.xerox.com>

> 
> Whether or not the endpoints of a tunnel need their own link-local addresses
> is an open issue.  I don't think RIPng should require that, since RIP
> classically has operated fine over unnumbered p-to-p links.
> 

I believe it would be much cleaner to require all interfaces 
including tunnels to have link-local addresses.  This way no special 
considerations have to be applied to p-to-p links.  Address tokens can 
be trivially generated for tunnel interfaces (e.g. use a local IPv4 
address for an IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel or the token of the encapsulating 
interface for a IPV6-in-IPv6 tunnel).  What are benefits of the totally 
unnumbered IPv6 interfaces? I guess link-local address space 
conservation is not one of them :)

> ..
> Yes, I think it's important to be able to detect one-way link or interface
> failures, regardless of link type.  A few of us here at PARC are currently
> implementing an experimental "RIPng++" which has support for that, plus
> several other extensions.  We plan to test it out on DARTnet before deciding
> which specific extensions to suggest for RIPng itself.
> 

I thought NUD as specified in the ND spec could be quite sufficiently 
used on all types of links to verify two-way reachability.  Am I missing 
something?

> Steve
> 
Dimitry