On Thu, 13 Aug 2015, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
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.
I think we're saying: there needs to be a PIO if it matters which first-hop
router such a host picks. If it doesn't matter (i.e. there is a complete local
routing cloud with SADR, or there is no BCP 38 filter) then the host can
use any first-hop router it wants.
Can it be an L=0 PIO?
How the router knows to send that PIO is not a problem for the host,
therefore not in scope in this draft. (But there's no doubt in my mind that
life is simpler if you don't use DHCPv6.)
Of course, but the use-case of having IA_NA that isn't covered by an
on-link PIO Is useful in some scenarios (where for instance you have
configured the L2 network so that devices can't talk directly to each
other, and you want to make the L3 configuration reflect this so you don't
have to do magic tricks like local-proxy-arp (whatever that would be
called in IPv6)).
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
