Mikael, >>> Your document describes (in my opinion) desireable behaviour for devices >>> going forward. I would like to see text for DHCPv6 as well, both IA_NA and >>> IA_PD, if the same kind of behaviour can work there somehow. This is out of >>> scope for homenet though. >> >> the rule applies regardless of how the addresses have been assigned. > > Yes, but how will the router signal that it'll handle addresses for a certain > prefix, for instance a /56 from where DHCPv6 IA_NA and IA_PD is being > assigned, but that isn't onlink? > > Advertising that /56 as an off-link prefix hasn't historically said "I'll > handle Internet traffic for source addresses within all prefixes that I > announce, both offlink and on-link". Perhaps we can say that it does, but > it's not obvious to me that there are no corner cases for this that'll break > things.
the rule we are proposing is something like: “In SA, DA, NH selection, prefer the NH that has advertised a PIO covering the SA” the subnet model in IPv6 assumed that all routers on a link had equal reachability. this rules solves the case where there are two routers with different reachability (and addressing) on a single link. currently hosts that don’t do implement this, typically suffer from long time outs and broken connectivity. with the above rule I don’t see how offlink/onlink or DHCPv6 makes any difference. if there isn’t a PIO, well then the host is left uninformed. can you construct an example where the rule breaks things and that not having the rule wouldn’t? cheers, Ole
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
