>> You've almost convinced me, so I'll just note that the same issue exists >> with the NODE-ADDRESS TLV in HNCP -- there's no reason to flood this >> information beyond the local link. In that case, the amount of state >> spuriously flooded could be moderately large (24 bytes per router per >> attached link), which argues in favour of a mechanism that allows >> publishing data that doesn't go beyond the local links. >> >> As you say, not sure it's worth the complexity.
> For SD purposes, we need at least 1 address per router. However, you are > correct, that _all_ addresses are not really necessarily needed (as noted > elsewhere). Perhaps we should just move this to a SHOULD (+~SLAAC+ND > backup), and then MUST have at least 1 address published in the SD section > if it is supported. Agreed. -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
