Hi Ted, For the testing that we have conducted at the lab, must typical CE Router don't support DHCPv6 PD on the LAN as Ole pointed out. There are a couple that have this as an additional feature. I'm not aware of RA-Guard or Layer-2 filtering being placed on Ethernet networks and haven't seen it but I must admit it's not something that I have paid attention super close attention too. Wireless has a different set of rules, which is a longer conversation.
Regards, Tim On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:18 AM Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > > Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com> wrote: > > I’ve been involved in some discussions recently where the question > has > > come up: how good is support for RFC7084 in shipping routers? And > > what gaps exist in RFC7084 that could cause problems? And in cases > > where RFC7084 support either isn’t present, or isn’t useful because > no > > IPv6 or because ISP is delegating a /64, what things might work and > > what things might not, if we want bidirectional reachability between > > two separate network links in the home. > > I see it (7084) in most every router at pubs in Ottawa. > They are connected by one of the incumbents that also does TV (think sports > channels in bars). There isn't always an IPv6 uplink (30% of them have > IPv6), > but there is consistently an IPv6 ULA visible. > Less often in coffee shops (WPA is on chalkboard), where it seems that they > tend to either buy from smaller ISPs (and provide their own crappy router), > or they are a multinational with hostile portals. > > > So for example, suppose we have "CE Router," which supports RFC7084, > > including prefix delegation. And we have "Internal Router" on that > > network requests a delegation, and gets a prefix from the CE router.. > > Presumably that prefix is out of a larger prefix that CE Router got > > from the ISP. Great so far. Let’s call the network on the > southbound > > interface of Internal Router “South Network”. Let’s call the network > on > > its northbound interface, which is also the network on CE router’s > > southbound interface, “North Network.” > > But 7084 has no requirements for DHCPv6-PD server. > > > Similarly, suppose we have a network where unfortunately PD Isn’t > > available internally, but IPv6 is present on the northbound interface > > of the internal node and southbound interface of the CE router. > > Suppose further that Internal Router allocates itself a ULA prefix > and > > advertises that as reachable and on-link on its southbound interface, > > and as reachable but not on-link on its northbound interface. Will > > that be blocked at layer 2 by CE Router? I’m sort of assuming here > > that the CE router is managing the North Network link, which is > > probably WiFi. > > That would probably work. > > > The goal here is to have bidirectional reachability between the two > > nodes on IPv6 using either a global prefix or a ULA. The concern is > > that something could prevent each of these cases from working. What > > I’m really curious about is whether people have experience with doing > > communications of this type using actual routers that ISPs are > > shipping. Is this “internal network” scenario part of acceptance > > testing for these routers? Is this all a big question mark? In > > principle this should all work, unless RA guard is hyperactive in CE > > Router. But what about in practice? > > I have never tried it, but I'm keen to. > > -- > ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh > networks [ > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network > architect [ > ] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on > rails [ > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
