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

[Greg Daley <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi Brett,

Brett Pentland wrote:
> Greg Daley wrote:
[cut]
>> 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.

As you know, I'm not arguing against the possibility of leaving
out the options per se, but I'd guess we  were trying to avoid
using CPL logic in most circumstances (wanting definitive
identification, rather than implicit).

If routers know there is limited cost to providing this, I guess
that there's no reason to prohibit them.

Greg