On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Ole Troan <[email protected]> wrote: > > IPv6 Host H1 will receive two PIO's, one each from R1 and R2, with > > autoconfiguration and on-link flags set, and configure /64 prefixes from > > both provider 1 and provider 2 (RFC 2461 4.6.2) and it will know these > > as being on-link. > > > > But IMHO there's no further AS number/provider information/upstream > > topology information coupled to these /64 prefixes. There might be a > > router-router interconnect LAN between R1 and R2, or there might not be. > > if there is no interconnect between R1 and R2, then the host has two > interfaces connected to two separate connections. then I can't see how > that can be solved in the network. my assumption is that all homenet > routers must be connected (I see I haven't stated that anywhere, but that > should be added). >
Do we really need this? When I originally put together the strawman it seemed to me that there are only two cases: either the two border routers have a path to each other, or they don't. If they do not have a path to each other, then the host cannot be connected to both routers using the same interface - because if it is, it's a broadcast interface and those two routers are also connected to each other. Should we write this in the draft? > > How will the host H1 know to associate source address prefixes from > > provider2 with router2 for off link destinations e.g. to a Provider2/56 > > or Provider2/32? > > in your case it will RFC6724, rule 5.5 > You don't need to invoke RFC 6724 for this. RFC 3484 (prefer outgoing interface) is enough. We should put this in the draft though. > My expected host behavior would currently be that it'd just choose one > > of the known available default routers from the list. If correct fine. > > If not, then wait for an ICMPv6 redirect to be told to use the other > router. > > you would only get that if the routers were connected of course. > whichever came first, you'd either get a unreachable code 5 (wrong source) > or ICMP redirect, or the router would just forward the packet to second > router. > Please let's not design something that requires ICMP redirects to work. It will be slow and unreliable. > > Thus H1 should never send packets with a source address derived from a > > PIO received in an RA from R2, to a potential default router R1 that > > sent an RA message but did not include a PIO for this particular source > > prefix? > > > > Where is this behavior defined in an RFC? I don't see it in > > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2461.txt Section 4.2 or > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4862#page-18 > > In fact section 6.3.6. on default router selection is quite explicit and > > doesn't mention associating potential default routers with prefix > > information options at all AFAIK. > > again, that's rule 5.5 (which is somewhat weak) in 6724. > 3484 rule 5 too, right? Or not?
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
