Re: [DNA] MUST NOT add DNA Option when landmark RA = NO?(draft-pentland-dna-protocol-00.txt)

[Brett Pentland <brett.pentland@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Greg Daley wrote:
> Hi Brett,
> 
> Brett Pentland wrote:
> 
>> MUST NOT is probably too strong.  SHOULD NOT or even MAY NOT
>> might be ok.  I don't think there's much value
>> in the DNA option in this case, because the host cannot use the
>> prefixes in it for configuration. Those same prefixes
>> should arrive in PIOs in RAs from the router(s) where they are
>> explicitly configured, very soon anyway.
> 
> 
> Can't the host use the prefixes learnt from the DNAO to not be
> surprised by prefixes in responding RAs (which may not be DNA RAs)
> to its existing solicitation?

Yes, but the DNA router responses would usually be received first,
and the non-DNA router responses would have to be dealt with using
CPL logic anyway, and shouldn't cause confusion.

Brett.