Re: draft ra guidelines: Worth the effort?

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Dan Lüdtke wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> we have released a revised version of our draft:
>> This document defines simple rules to follow when defining new router
>>   advertisement options.
>
> As the interest on the first version was very low, we would like to ask 
> again for comments and review. If you feel that this document should not 
> be worked on further but should be dropped, please tell us. We would 
> prefer not wasting anyones time (including ours) for a document that 
> nobody sees a need for. We just felt that this was an issue some time 
> ago and needs to be addressed to avoid further confusions of RA option 
> authors.

I agree that this is an issue and I would like this worked on.

There might also be other places where we would like to insert more 
information and properties, for instance MTU:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-van-beijnum-multi-mtu-04

It would be useful to be able to say "this LAN has MTU 9000 generally", 
but saying "I'm a router and I can speak 9000 frames on this LAN, but the 
default route you might point at me because I sent this RA, should only be 
set to 1500 MTU".

So perhaps we should not focus on RA guidelines but ND guidelines that 
would also include RAs?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]