Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

[Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>]

>> iff you wanted to make ND into a routing protocol using MSRs, I believe
>> you would have to change RFC4191. and possibly the main ND spec, as routers
>> doesn't listen to ND.
>
> I only see a requirement in RFC 4294 (and draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-02)
> to send RS and process received RA at hosts.  There is no language that says
> routers MUST NOT send RS and process received RA, as
> draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router describes.

routers don't send RSs hosts do. but I agree to the extent that the
host/router property is per-interface. and the distinction becoming
more blurred by the day in any case.

> You have a point about RFC 4191 perhaps needing to be amended.  It describes
> MSR as a router-to-host protocol and not a router-to-node protocol.  This
> strikes me as an oversight that should be corrected.  I see no technical
> reason that only hosts and not all nodes should be permitted to process MSR
> messages.

this was something which was touched upon by Ralph's presentation in
the rtgarea meeting. I think this needs more consideration and include
a wider audience; should we make DHCP and ND into routing protocols?

btw, from RFC4861, section 6.2.7:
"...Any other action on reception of Router Advertisement messages by a
   router is beyond the scope of this document."

Ole