Mikael, >>> For DHCPv6 these contraints do not apply anymore. That's what I'm trying to >>> figure out, how do we handle these IA_NAs and IA_PDs that are not within an >>> on-link RA being sent for that prefix. >> >> I take it IA_PD was included above by mistake. > > No.
an IA_PD prefix is by definition not assigned to the link between RR and DR. >>> This is definitely not a configuration error, it's perfectly valid to hand >>> out single address using DHCPv6 IA_NA that isn't covered by an off-link or >>> on-link prefix. >> >> true. but I’m not sure what bearing that has with the host rule in question. >> I’m also wondering if you are making a wrong assumption of what an L=0 PIO >> entails. > > I don't know. Am I? > > I still don't understand what a host with an IA_NA or IA_PD that isn't > covered by an on-link PIO should do with a packet sourced from those > IA_NA/IA_PD addresses. Yes, I do believe this to be a very valid case. are you talking about something different than 3633 DHCPv6 prefix delegation? if the SA doesn’t match a PIO on link, then the next-hop on that interface is chosen like it is today. if you’re inventing new stuff like host IA_PD derived addresses, then that’s something someone has to specify. cheers, Ole
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
