Ole - I have a problem with some of the terminology in the
requirements: specifically, the use of "LAN" is ambiguous and should,
I think, be replaced with some more specific like "to all links on
which the device has an active interface".
One issue with this mechanism is what to do if the "ULA-router"
flaps? Will another router begin to advertise a new ULA? Will the
original router honor the new ULA and refrain from advertising its own
ULA when it comes back up? All of which leads to a "ULA-flap" in the
subscriber network, which seems like a bad event.
- Ralph
On Jan 12, 2010, at 7:50 AM 1/12/10, Ole Troan wrote:
hi,
a question arose from work I'm doing with the BBF and their CPE
requirements document (TR-124/WT-192). an issue has been raised with
regards to a requirement about CPE routers automatically offering
ULA addresses on the LAN. in the case of multiple CPE routers on a
link, the suggestion is the following two requirements:
LAN.ADDRESSv6. 3 The device MUST send a Router Solicitation to the
LAN, to determine if there
are other routers
present. MUST
LAN.ADDRESSv6. 4 If the device determines other routers are present
in the LAN, and that another
router is advertising
a ULA prefix, the device MUST be configurable to
automatically use
this information to decide not to advertise its own
ULA prefix. MUST
any opinion on these requirements and how they compare with expected
behavour as specified in RFC4861?
cheers,
Ole
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
