>>>>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 02:16:46 +1000,
>>>>> "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Note that I don't see a need to prohibit unsolicited NAs with O=0,
>> thus the text in section 3.1 regarding them is ok.
>> I just don't see them as useful hence we shouldn't recommend that they be
>> sent.
> Yep, they're only useful in a particular circumstance, and that
> puts them fairly thoroughly beyond the scope of OptiDAD. I'd
> like to keep the rules about the O flag in 3.1, just to
> keep anyone who does implement this honest. Jinmei, would you
> be happy with this?
To make it sure, I'm going to talk about the following bullet of
Section 3.1:
* (adds to 7.2.6) The Optimistic node MAY send an unsolicited
Neighbour Advertisement to All Nodes when it first configures an
address. The Override flag on this advertisement MUST be cleared
(O=0).
Hmm, I'd still like to remove this bullet, since I don't want to see
new implementations introduce the optimization just because it's a
"MAY", without considering the rationale and possible bad effects.
My goal is to minimize possible (perhaps unseen) disruption as much
as possible particularly when we can do so without requiring crucial
change on the OptiDAD behavior. In this sense, I'd personally would
like to prohibit this feature explicitly, so that even existing
implementations that happen to have this feature will remove it. But
I won't insist on this point strongly.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
