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

[Mark Smith <ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org>]

On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:45:00 +0200
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.
> 
> 
> 

I'm afraid I think it is time to stop considering fiddling with
existing and functional specifications to a achieve micro-efficiencies
such as saving a packet here and there, or saving small amounts of IPv6
address space.

Right now, the priority needs to be on getting IPv6 deployed, which
means accepting things when they are adequate to perform the task,
rather than persisting until they're 'technically perfect' - commonly a
matter of opinion of course, so it may actually never be achieved in
some people's mind.

Regards,
Mark.