On 08/07/2015 09:31, Michael Richardson wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ... but I understand your desire to keep RAs off networks where they > >> do not belong. Perhaps RAs (and IPv6 prefix allocation) should be > >> suppressed on networks on which no IPv6 traffic has been seen, and no > >> RSs have ever occured. > > > Once IPv4 is put out of its misery, that would be the null set, > > wouldn't it? > > Presence of RA(?I think?) or DHCPv6(PD) would cause the network to be seen as > an external network, and would therefore turn off HNCP on that interface.
I don't see why RAs would do that. RAs are a required feature of an IPv6 network, regardless of whether it has external connectivity. IMHO it would be perfectly OK for a router that comes up and finds itself without any friends or uplinks to invent a ULA prefix and start RAs. Brian > > If some host is sending RSs and there are no RAs in answer, then the network > may be waiting for HNCP to come up and provide service. > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works > -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- > > > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
