> 1. remove 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).
ok > And then (optionally) > > 2. add the following somewhere (perhaps not in Section 3, since it's > not a modification to the existing specifications): > > * The Optimistic node MUST NOT send an unsolicited Neighbor > Advertisement containing an Optimistic address in the target > address field. > > This is to prohibit new implementations that have seen existing one > using the obsolete behavior from doing the same thing without > considering the real reason for it. I prefer 'MUST NOT', but this > might be too strong and I can live with 'SHOULD NOT'. While we don't think sending unsolicited NAs is useful hence they would consume resources if sent for no reason, this isn't a strong enough reason to use "MUST NOT" (using "MUST NOT" for things that would cause interoperability problems, or cause the network to melt would be appropriate). So I think this should be a "SHOULD NOT". > And then (optionally) > > 3. add the following somewhere (perhaps not in Section 3, since it's > not a modification to the existing specifications): > > * The Optimistic node MUST NOT send any Neighbor Advertisement > containing an Optimistic address in the target address field, > unless the Override flag on the advertisement is zero. > > if we really want to avoid an NA that happens to set the override flag > ON. If we do a "SHOULD NOT" in 2 as I suggest, I think it would be useful to have #3 in the document as well to make it clear that the override flag must always be zero for optimistic addresses. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
