> from RFC2461 5.1 (conceptual data structures) I feel that the authors
> assumed that:
> - autoconfigured hosts are at the very edge of the site only
> - if we put a host onto a link with more than 2 routers, they will not
> automatically be configured, and do something tricky (like running
> routing daemon on hosts in receive-only mode).
Why doesn't advertising all 3 routers (without any preferences) plus
redirects solve this problem?
Erik
> router
> |
> ==+=======+== <--- no autoconfigured hosts here
> | |
> router router
> | |
> ==+== ==+==
> | |
> host host
>
> but anyway, we need to talk about how the non-leaf case should be
> handled in terms of host autoconfiguration. even today, we see almost
> no use of DHCPv4 static route option (RFC2132 5.8) - we just
> autoconfigure default router(s) to DHCPv4 client, that's all.
>
> itojun
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
> IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
> FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
> Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
