Mikael, in the land of contrived examples! :-) this working groups answer to the below is make this a homenet and run HNCP. then the host rule enhancement isn’t used. in any case let me try to reply below, although I’m quite confused about the example.
>> two PIO’s of different length on the link sounds like a configuration error. > > Then I must still be missing something. > > Example time: > > A B+-+F > + + > | | > +----+-----+----+ > | | > + + > C D > + > | > + > E > > A, B and D are routers. A has received a /56 from ISPA. D has been delegated > a /64 from this ISPA prefix using DHCPv6 IA_PD. A is advertising a /64 from > ISPA with A=1,L=1, and also advertises M=1 for the ABCD link. A is also > advertising ISPA /56 as off-link to indicate that it'll handle the entire /56. currently, advertising a PIO with L=0 isn’t a routing advertisement (“handle the prefix”?). it only affects a hosts prefix list and how it does onlink determination for addresses in that prefix. i.e. a host would first chose D and NH, then find a suitable source. with the new rule, the PIO becomes more like a source constrained route. “for any source address matching prefix in PIO, send traffic to me”. I don’t understand what you would gain from the ISPA/56 PIO over the ISPA/64 you’d have in C already. > Now, C takes itself a couple of addresses from the ABCD /64 (because A=1) and > does DHCPv6 IA_NA. A then hands it an address from outside the /64 (because > that was configured for some reason). A has a /120 route pointing to its > interface that ABCD sits on, so that this DHCPv6 IA_NA works (because it's > outside the on-link /64). > > D is a RFC7084 router and has requested IA_PD from A and received another > /64, which it then uses to put on the DE link. > > Now, do we want D to do anything to tell C that E is reachable through D? > Like announce in RAs an off-link /64? Or announce an RIO? Or do nothing and > let all traffic from C to D bounce via A? Do we want A to in some way > announce the delegated /64 IA_PD prefix? 1) run homenet / routing protocol 2) absolutely not 3) RIO with router lifetime of 0 could work but geez this is what homenet solves 4) yes 5) no > What do we want A to do, should it announce the /120 as off-link? On-link > might make sense in this case. that would only affect hosts on the ABCD link. D would still send all traffic for the /120 to A (as default route) > B has F behind it, I guess we want this to get an address as well, from ISPA > prefix. Do we want B to send out an RIO for this /64? you want B to run homenet. > So for C, the world view might now look like this: > > /56 RIO or PIO (depending on what we want to do) for ISPA prefix I don’t see that you need either. > /64 on-link PIO from A for the on-link ABCD /64 prefix yes. > /120 on-link PIO from A for the on-link ABCD DHCPv6 IA_NA prefix possibly. probably not needed. > /64 RIO (?) from D for its DE /64 > /64 RIO (?) from B for its BF /64 > > Or do we want above RIOs to be off-link PIOs instead? they would be RIOs. since you want destination routes, and not source routes. in (D,S) SADR notation. a RIO: (DE/64, *) while PIO: (::/0, DE/64) please use homenet protocols. don’t build networks like this! cheers, Ole
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
