Subject: ND on multi-homed nodes

From: [email-masked] (Sam Manthorpe)
Date: Sat, 30 Oct 1999 12:25:31 -0700 (PDT)

I'm not following the list 100%, so my apologies in advance if this
is a stupid/already answered question.  Address resolution of link-local
addresses on multi-homed nodes appears to require neighbour discovery
on all interfaces of that node.  I was wondering how others have
decided to implement this as I would like to follow the norm (if
there is one) for IRIX.

I see on a Solaris box we have (which is still running 2.5, so this
may have changed) that there are multiple network routes allowed
and there is a route for fe80::/10 for each interface.  I assume
that stack performs ND for each route.  Is this how others have
tackled this?

Thanks for any info,
Sam.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sam Manthorpe, SGI.  tel: (650)933-2856 fax: (650)932-2856  [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 16:12:39 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> yes, one of the first consequences of to be an interface
is the mandatory support of neighbour discovery on it
(but this support is not for all the functions in all cases).

   I see on a Solaris box we have (which is still running 2.5, so this
   may have changed) that there are multiple network routes allowed
   and there is a route for fe80::/10 for each interface.

=> they should be a route for fe80::/64 and for ff00::/16 per interface
(in fact destinations are different because there is a hidden scope id,
here an interface index).

   I assume that stack performs ND for each route.  Is this how others have
   tackled this?
   
=> yes, the principal reason I was against to make configured tunnels
full interfaces before San Jose IETF meeting is the mandatory and useless
support of ND for them (but in this case not all ND functions are used,
for instance address resolution is not needed. This is the common case
for point-to-point interfaces).

Regards

[email-masked]