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” > > Check. And PIO here can be RIO as well? no, I don’t think it can. the RIO says nothing about the link itself. > What about if there are several PIO/RIOs of different size, do we do longest > matching on them to prefer one? Or shortest because the guy with the shortest > prefix (not /0) is more likely to be the one closest to the uplink? two PIO’s of different length on the link sounds like a configuration error. >> can you construct an example where the rule breaks things and that not >> having the rule wouldn’t? > > No, I am still trying to figure out exactly what is being proposed. Next step > is to try to come up with something that'll make things break. good. ;-) cheers, Ole
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
