Re: [DNA] DNAO format revision?

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

Greg Daley wrote:

> Please respond indicating if you like any of the
> existing proposals (Current, Variant 1 or Variant 2),
> or prefer something different.

I think either one is an improvement over the current one in the draft. 
Whether we want the smaller #2 option (with a bit more complexity) 
depends on how important we think it is to minimize the size of the DNAO.

The DNAO is only sent by a routers when not all routers on the link are 
configured to advertise the same set of prefixes. However, RFC 2461 does 
allow that the routers advertise different sets of prefixes. I'd suspect 
that in all well-run IPv6 networks the routers advertise the same set of 
prefixes (so that they all can be backups for each other). So optimizing 
the size of the DNAO might not be terribly important.
But I don't have a problem with format #2 - just questioning the 
necessity of minimizing something which might not be used much in the 
real world (but is mostly there to deal with the - perhaps unnecessary - 
generality in RFC 2461).

    Erik