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 13:27:28 +0200 you wrote:
>The BBF spec goes into even finer detail, and IMO it would
>be a bit naive to have the CPE spec just represent some status quo of v6
>implementations; we have a CPE spec so that vendors can build to it CPEs and
>other devices (CMTSes, BNGs, etc), and operators have a model reference of
>the expected behaviour.

We are not talking about random behavior of some implementation. These
are features of the protocols that are explicitly allowed by the standards.

For example, the neighbor discovery RFC could be updated to include that the
host can send RS messages with the unspecified address as long as DAD is
not finished for the link-local address. And that they should send at least
a certain number of RS messages with the link-local address as source
(unless an RA is received before that time).

I think that would help implementators and end-users a lot more than random
requirements in a CPE spec.