Re: [DNA] Re: RS/RA Exchange

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>]

> I think this is a good default strategy (link-local order).
> Manually configured addresses are likely to be first, though.
> 
> Notably, older equipment from the same manufacturer is
> likely to be selected first (same as in 802.1D STP root bridge
> selection), if the link-local addresses are based on EUI/MAC.

Taking the highest-numbered link-locals first would reverse this if that's
what we want.

> Router List membership could be secured with SEND.  There are
> already mechanisms for determining routing authority in SEND.
> It could be configurable policy to only believe authorized
> routers.
> 
> In this case, the routers may have CGA addresses anyway so the
> ordering of the link-local prefixes is fairly unpredictable
> with regards to age and manufacture.

Agreed

> I'd guess that the ordering and selection issue is a generic one.
> It would be good if we didn't re-invent solutions.

There are protocols, like MLD and routing protocols, which elect some
form of designated node (querier for MLD) but those protocols don't produce
a full sorted list of all the routers on the link.
I wonder if there is something here which could be reused.

> The actual scheduling (apart from order) seems orthogonal.

Yes, except that if you don't have an order the scheduling issue is a bit
different than when there is an order.

 Erik