Re: [DNA] draft-ietf-dna-cpl-02.txt

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

Hi Greg,

>> - Should the explicit linkid always be in the LPO or can it be a 
>> flag in a PIO (the latter is in the draft)?
> 
> Personally, I prefer having  as this means there's no need to include
> an LPO if all routers advertise the same prefix (which is also,
> naturally the prefix linkid)
> Of course this means the host needs to check each of the LPO and
> PIO options for the flag, but it needed to parse the options anyway.

I agree.

>> - What order do the hosts treat the indications (land mark option,
>>   prefixes, linkid in the draft at present)
> 
> I think that we should note that there could be conflicts between
> these indications, either in a transition associated with 
> router arrival or departure, or as an error condition.
> 
> If that's the case, we should recommend a safe course of action:
> I'd suggest to act as if change has occurred (if there's sufficient
> trust of the RA).
> 
> Does that make sense?

Yes.  There's a much bigger penalty for failing to detect link change
than for mistakenly assuming change and reconfiguring (which fairly
quickly recovers the old configuration).

>> - Given that we now have an explicit linkid, should we get rid of 
>> all of the flags in the landmark option - the no flag is not really
>> needed and since taking that out would leave only one, we can
>> probably get rid of that as well - LO in RA = yes (at present the
>> flags are still there)
> 
> I agree (so long as the prefix matches that from the LO in the RS),
> but others may wish to state their position.

You agree that the flags should go?

Good luck with the new job.
Brett.