Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> 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.
The point is to provide a *heuristic* that prevents HNCP from turning on IPv6
RAs on a network which is otherwise managed by another device.
The presence of RAs on a network (with an absense of HNCP messages) is a
signal that something else is managing that network.
If there was also DHCPv6-PD, then the heuristic already knows that.
> 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.
Yes, it would.. it doing that (and not having HNCP) would be a sign that HNCP
should not (by default) turn on RAs on that network.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
