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

[Wojciech Dec <wdec@cisco.com>]

On 28/04/2010 19:45, "Philip Homburg" <pch-v6ops@u-1.phicoh.com> wrote:

> 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.

Indeed that may be a nice thing, however I'm sure you appreciate that the
practicalities of changing an rfc are very different from clarifying or
tightening some rfc behavior on a device meant to fulfill a specific role
(eg the CPE). 
The behavior expected with respect to certain RA flags has been discussed
for years, with ambiguous conclusions. As such, it's very pragmatic that the
CPE draft lays down more clarity in some areas, esp. When they have the
potential to make the behavior of the system more deterministic. As such
these requirements are anything but random.

-Woj. 


> 
>