There was an issue about how much we should allow a router (not a
host) to use the RFC2462 spec to configure itself. Specifically,
a) if a router can configure a global address by stateless autoconf
b) if a router can configure a link-local address in a way described
in RFC 2462
c) if a router can configure itself about "other" configuration
information
and I suggested in Minneapolis "a=NO, b=YES, c=NO".
I then noticed this was actually pretty clear in the original
RFC2462. It says in Introduction that:
The autoconfiguration process specified in this document applies only
to hosts and not routers. Since host autoconfiguration uses
information advertised by routers, routers will need to be configured
by some other means. However, it is expected that routers will
generate link-local addresses using the mechanism described in this
document. In addition, routers are expected to successfully pass the
Duplicate Address Detection procedure described in this document on
all addresses prior to assigning them to an interface.
So, my current resolution for this is "do nothing".
However, we may have to clear whether the definition of a "router" is
per-interface basis. The current definition in RFC2462 is:
router - a node that forwards IP packets not explicitly addressed to
itself.
which I would NOT call per-interface basis.
If we agree on adopting the per-interface definition, we'll probably
need to revise the definition in the "TERMINOLOGY" section.
Additionally, adopting this definition also opens up the possibility
of a "half-host, half-router" node, like:
------(I1)Node(I2)-------
(I3)
|
|
where I1 and I2 are "normal" interfaces for which the node is acting
as a router, and I3 is an interface to a "back-door" for which the
node is acting as a host. This node can accept a router advertisement
on interface I3 to configure an address or even configure a "default
route" to I3 (though the latter part is out of scope of 2462bis).
Should we, if adopting the per-interface definition, explicitly
mention this type of configuration in rfc2462bis?
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
