Re: NOTE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt

[itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino)]

> Nodes may act as hosts on some interfaces and routers on other
> interfaces. They may also act in different turns as routers and hosts
> on the same interface. I see nothing in RFC 2461 that precludes such
> "hybrid" nodes from sending RSs and processing RAs.
> 
> In fact, the second-to-last paragraph of RFC 2461, section 6.2.7
> ("Router Advertisement Consistency") says:
> 
>    "Note that it is not an error for different routers to advertise
>    different sets of prefixes.  Also, some routers might leave some
>    fields as unspecified, i.e., with the value zero, while other routers
>    specify values.  The logging of errors SHOULD be restricted to
>    conflicting information that causes hosts to switch from one value to
>    another with each received advertisement."
> 
> 
> So, if router A has good reason to believe that router B advertises
> a different set of prefixes, I see nothing unusual about A sending
> RSs to B (and getting RAs back from B) to discover the different
> prefixes.

	i guess i mentioned it in the past, if we allow routers to advertise
	different set of prefixes (which is the case now with RFC2462) and
	allow routers to autoconfigure themselves with RA, we go into
	bootstraap problem when router reboots.  i consider autoconfiguring
	router is a dangerous idea, and "hybrid router" idea is too.

itojun