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

["Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Wojciech Dec (wdec)
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 3:37 AM
To: Philip Homburg
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: RS sending in draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04 


>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.

I agree with Woj totally on this one.  The IPv6 CE Rtr can tighten text
rather than going back to changing any RFCs.  For example, we could add
text to the IPv6 CE Rtr saying the device sends up to three RS's and
then given up IPv6 address acquisition if no RA is received.  Cable
modems in Docsis 3.0 have such a specification. The IPv6 CE Rtr can also
tighten text to say the RS must include a source address and if source
address is included in the RS, note, one can also include the source
link-layer address option in the RS as well.  However, it is always good
to first understand why a certain deployment cannot do without the RS
being sent with a specified src-address rather than an unspecified
address.

Hemant