On 13/08/2015 17:23, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Can it be an L=0 PIO?
I would think so. L=0 conveys no information, after all,
according to RFC 4861: "When not set the advertisement makes
no statement about on-link or off-link properties of the prefix."
So I think the -01 draft is wrong, since it says "on-link."
Brian
>
>> 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.)
>
> Of course, but the use-case of having IA_NA that isn't covered by an on-link
> PIO Is useful in some scenarios (where for instance
> you have configured the L2 network so that devices can't talk directly to
> each other, and you want to make the L3 configuration
> reflect this so you don't have to do magic tricks like local-proxy-arp
> (whatever that would be called in IPv6)).
>
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
