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

[Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@east.sun.com>]

> > 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.

So, I don't see a particularly good reason to disallow a device from
having distinct router-like and host-like ports, especially if the
strong multihoming model is in effect, so the device doesn't forward
packets to or from the hostlike ports.

(One obvious application for this is out-of-band management networks,
which generally don't seem worth it to me in many cases..)

					- Bill