Re: Universal RA option draft - ASN1 JSON CBOR

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 22/12/2018 à 17:09, Templin (US), Fred L a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
> 
>> I am happy to see rio there.  I would like to extend that 'rio' to tell
>> that it can be - optionally - accepted by a router.  (at this time RIO
>> can only be accepted by a Host, its RFC says).  I suggest this to be
>> made part of it:
>>
>> rio_route-router = {
>>      prefix : tstr
>>      preference : (0..3)
>>      ? lifetime : uint
>> }
> 
> We talk more about RIOs in 'draft-templin-6man-rio-redirect':
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-rio-redirect/
> 
> In that document, we also define an optional "attributes" extension.
> Would that also need to appear here?
> 
> Incidentally, RIO with attributes might be useful for the ITS use cases
> where some other drafts were proposing the definition of a new ND
> option. I think a new ND option is not needed if we can leverage RIO.
> What do you think?

Currently we do use some prefixes in RIOs.  We think we may need some 
more attributes than just the existing in RIO, because we dont know how 
these RIOs work when there are more than two cars in a convoy.

In particular, I am almost sure to think that your draft's mentioning of 
an S flag for 'soliciting' a particular prefix in RIO is something worth 
pursuing.

Universal RA - yes, but accompanied by an Universal RS too.

Alex

> 
> Thanks - Fred
>