At Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:51:05 -0700, "David W. Hankins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. (It's questionable to me whether such a situation is practically so useful that it warrants, e.g, introducing a new DHCPv6 option, but aside from that point,) In this case, the DHCPv6 server (or a relay, which would also rely on a router and wouldn't work in this situation anyway) can send out an RA with the router lifetime being 0 and with a prefix information option. The server could actually keep sending such minimum RA, whether or not other routers are active. If the possible alternative were to introduce a new DHCPv6 option that includes this information, we should be able to assume the server (as a node) is configured with that information, so it's just a matter of which function is implemented in that node. --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
