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

[Wojciech Dec <wdec@cisco.com>]

On 28/04/2010 19:33, "Philip Homburg" <pch-v6ops@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:

> 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).

Why aren't you also claiming that M and O flag behaviour as specified by
this document requires a change of 4861? That same logic of tightening the
spec to fit a specific type of device applies there too, and arguably is one
of the main values of this draft.


-Woj.

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