On 2004-08-05, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote: > >>>>> "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.
Just to be sure, which possible bad effects do you mean? -----Nick -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
