Below...
On 13/08/2015 06:42, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Ole Troan wrote:
>
>>> For DHCPv6 these contraints do not apply anymore. That's what I'm trying to
>>> figure out, how do we handle these IA_NAs and
>>> IA_PDs that are not within an on-link RA being sent for that prefix.
>>
>> I take it IA_PD was included above by mistake.
>
> No.
>
>>> This is definitely not a configuration error, it's perfectly valid to hand
>>> out single address using DHCPv6 IA_NA that isn't
>>> covered by an off-link or on-link prefix.
>>
>> true. but I’m not sure what bearing that has with the host rule in question.
>> I’m also wondering if you are making a wrong assumption of what an L=0 PIO
>> entails.
>
> I don't know. Am I?
>
> I still don't understand what a host with an IA_NA or IA_PD that isn't
> covered by an on-link PIO should do with a packet sourced
> from those IA_NA/IA_PD addresses. Yes, I do believe this to be a very valid
> case.
I think we're saying: there needs to be a PIO if it matters which first-hop
router such a host picks. If it doesn't matter (i.e. there is a complete local
routing cloud with SADR, or there is no BCP 38 filter) then the host can
use any first-hop router it wants.
How the router knows to send that PIO is not a problem for the host,
therefore not in scope in this draft. (But there's no doubt in my mind that
life is simpler if you don't use DHCPv6.)
Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
