The failure model in the absense of the link's router(s) are described in RFC 4943.
In particular, the assumption that all hosts are on-link in the absence of RA's was deprecated. Whether there is something more useful that can be done in this case is future work that the IETF may or may not take on. - Wes -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David W. Hankins Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2008 11:51 AM To: DHC WG Cc: IPV6 List Mailing Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Brokenness of specs w.r.t. client behavior with M&O bits On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 08:45:12AM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote: > Correct, and that is the motivation for > draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-02.txt. See Section 3, for example. That draft completely misses the original point. This isn't a question of whether "ifconfig inet6 2001:db8::1/64" 'should be permissible' so far as the IETF is concerned. This is a question of what the failure model should be when DHCPv6 succeeds but the link's router(s) are unavailable. Generally speaking, it is astonishing to the user for the model to be a complete failure of all communications - not just those to external nodes. Consequently, implementations choose to provide a prefix with the address. It isn't because "they don't understand the subnet model." They understand, and it is broken. -- Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul. Why settle for the lesser evil? https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/ -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
