> To put it another way, if we think there is a good use case for this > as Ole describes, we will be doing a service to the devices that > don't have their IPv6 code yet, to make it a SHOULD so they are > more likely to implement it.
Here is some proposed text: 5.3. Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191 "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191] provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks each providing routers that advertise themselves as default routers via Router Advertisements. In some scenarios, one router may provide connectivity to destinations the other router does not, and choosing the "wrong" default router can result in reachability failures. In such cases, RFC4191 can help. Small Office/Home Office (SOHO) deployments supported by routers adhering to [RFC6204], use [RFC4191] to advertise routes to certain local destinations. Consequently, nodes that will be deployed in SOHO environments SHOULD implement [RFC4191]. Thoughts? Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
