On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, JINMEI Tatuya / ???? wrote: >> The scenario where a router advertises the default route yet does not >> advertise any prefix information (or prefix information does not set >> the autoconfig bit) is still a valid scenario (e.g., I could imagine >> DHCPv6-only deployments using this; in fact I believe if you want to >> run DHCPv6-only this is the only choice to for deploying default >> route) and it should be addressed. > > In this case I'd expect the host has a valid global address obtained > through DHCPv6, so the original assumption in this thread (link-local > only host) doesn't hold (unless you're talking about the very short > period after receiving an RA and before getting a global address via > DHCPv6).
I'm thinking of failure modes such as the DHCPv6 server being down and the node being unable to get global-scope addresses, yet getting the default route. One could say that this is an operational problem but my argument is that this would be a common-enough scenario that our protocols should be robust enough to route around this particular failure if there is a chance to do so (e.g. by default address selection choosing to use IPv4 instead). -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
