I agree the issue spans multiple WGs and it would be good to ensure that there is agreement/convergence between thinking in those WGs (at least nemo, multi6 and ipv6).
Right. In addition, the SEND WG had an issue about this as well, when they debated the semantics of prefixes in router certificates. (They decided to stick with the IPv6 RA semantics. That is, SEND hopes someone else, maybe multi6, will make it clearer what the rules are.)
I have also seen the RFC 3484 rules, and I agree with others that they are somewhat vague. In any case, multi6 is already discussing this so eventually there will be a spec that will guide us. However, in any case when there are multiple routers with different prefixes on the same link, currently implemented IPv6 hosts may make the wrong decision. Certainly at least those nodes that predate RFC 3484.
But I have a question about the NEMO case. I had assumed that mobile routers move around and attach their egress interface to various place in the internet. And that their ingress interface serves a number of hosts, unaware of the movements. I don't see the default router selection as an issue in this scenario, as the hosts will stick to the same mobile router all the time, and the mobile router acts like a host on its egress interface. So if the visited link works for hosts, it should work for mobile routers.
But perhaps you are considering a situation where the ingress interface of two mobile routers may be shared, or that a mobile router's ingress interface may suddenly appear on some stationary network. If we allow this, there could be problems. Do we really need it?
--Jari
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
