On 2004-06-03, Greg Daley wrote: > > RFC2461's Section 7.2.3 describes the router's own recovery from > this incorrect state, by sending subsequent router or neigbour > advertisements. > > Considering that the device doing optimistic DAD which erroneously > causes the IsRouter flag to be unset has already sent a DAD NS to the > address owner (in this case the router), the router will schedule an > NA to all-nodes within a second of this NS's reception.
Aha! The draft suggests an RA will reset it, but on rereading it I realized this was wrong. Seems like the NA will fix the problem ... > Please also be aware there is no issue for default router selection > on hosts, (which is what the IsRouter flag is for) since they never > receive the RS in the first place. ... insofar as it is a problem in the first place. Anyone know of a situation in which a temporary toggling of the IsRouter bit _on another router_ will affect anything? Alternately, we could consider that last clause of 2461 6.2.6 to be a bug (why _shouldn't_ a router send a RS if it wants to?) and this whole thing a rare enough case to not worry about. In that case I think I'll correct the text and make it clearer, leaving the option to send with a source address but no SLLAO in there for these hurried types. It doesn't solve the 'four signals' problem (RS - NS - NA - RA), but improving the RS/RA exchange is beyond the scope of this particular draft I feel. -----N -- Nick 'Sharkey' Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://zoic.org/sharkey/> "World Domination Through Enhanced Shareholder Value!" -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
