Re: RS sending in draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04

[Wojciech Dec <wdec@cisco.com>]

On 27/04/2010 16:13, "Philip Homburg" <pch-v6ops@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:

> 
>> I take it that other than clarifications, you see no issue with the
>> proposal.
> 
> It is fine with me if you update RFC-4861 for all links and all cases.
> I don't think it is a good idea to create all kinds of different versions of
> the neighbor discovery protocols depending not on the link type, but how the
> link is used.
> 
> If you do ND over ethernet, there should be one set of rules for doing that.
> And not one set of rules for ordinary ethernet and another if you happen
> to connect to an ISP.

Updating RFC4861 is not the intent and there is no modification of the
protocol being proposed here. Citing from the begging of this thread:

RFC4861 states:
" A host sends Router Solicitations to the all-routers multicast
   address.  The IP source address is set to either one of the
   interface's unicast addresses or the unspecified address."

As such having Rses with a unicast address is already covered by the
protocol. The proposed change tightens the CPE's RS sending rule, which
combined with serialized DAD (or even optimistic DAD), makes sense.

-Woj.