[DNA] Re: IPv6 WG Last Call:draft-ietf-ipv6-optimistic-dad-01.txt

["Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <sharkey@zoic.org>]

On 2004-08-05, JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B?@L@C#:H wrote:
> >>>>> "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <sharkey@zoic.org> 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