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

[Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops@u-1.phicoh.com>]

In your letter dated Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:47:17 +0200 you wrote:
>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.

IMHO, changing RFC-4861 is what is required if you can't live with the
unspecified address (or any global address).

This goes in the direction of OSI-like profiles, something IPv4 seemed have
avoided mostly.