On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:34, Alexandru Petrescu < alexandru.petre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think 4191 is desirable if the host is a Host on cellular, not a > Router on cellular (tethering IPv6). A pure Router does not consider > receiving RAs other than for logging purposes, thus ignoring the > potentially present RIO. > IPv6 CE routers already listen to RAs and use them for routing information (see RFC 6204). There's no reason a phone can't do the same. > Additionally, RIO (Route Information Option) does not seem to encode > the address of next-hop (it seems left to determine elsewhere, not clear > its relationship with the prefix in RIO). The next-hop is the router that sent you the RA. This is good because it implies fate-sharing - if the router goes away or is not capable of carrying your packets any more, then the RA goes away as well. If you want to send traffic to a specific prefix through another router on the link, then that router must send the RA itself. It doesn't have to announce itself as a default router if it doesn't want to be - it can just carry traffic to that prefix.
_______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
