On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 18:49:18 -0400
Christopher Morrow <christopher.mor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (most of the discussion seems to be revolving around a simple, to me,
> phrasing problem, but)
>
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Hemant Singh (shemant)
> <shem...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> > We are discussing off-link model and RFC 5942 is described in this RFC.
> > Further, when an interface of a router acquires an IPv6 address or
> > receives an RA, the interface is acting as a host.
> >
>
> anyone that configures a router with RA is headed for disaster
> anyway... (not a cpe device mind you, though most of those will get
> addressing via pppoe/pd and not RA so...)
>
I wouldn't be so sure about that - the CPE draft says the following
about WAN interface configuration, with Router Discovery i.e. RAs is a
MUST -
W-1: When the router is attached to the WAN interface link it MUST
act as an IPv6 host for the purposes of stateless or stateful
interface address assignment ([RFC4862] / [RFC3315]).
W-2: The IPv6 CE router MUST generate a link-local address and
finish Duplicate Address Detection according to [RFC4862] prior
to sending any Router Solicitations on the interface. The
source address used in the subsequent Router Solicitation MUST
be the link-local address on the WAN interface.
W-3: Absent of other routing information the IPv6 CE router MUST use
Router Discovery as specified in [RFC4861] to discover a
default router(s) and install default route(s) in its routing
table with the discovered router's address as the next-hop.
W-4: The router MUST act as a requesting router for the purposes of
DHCPv6 prefix delegation ([RFC3633]).
W-5: DHCPv6 address assignment (IA_NA) and DHCPv6 prefix delegation
(IA_PD) SHOULD be done as a single DHCPv6 session.
> I think the case that maz/miyao outlined is a normal internet backbone
> router, it has many interfaces (several hundred), it has many (several
> hundred) bgp sessions to neighbors. today the interfaces are being
> configured as /127's in some cases.
>
> This draft, which I support as being a working group item (we really
> should just discuss that portion first, then argue language issues),
> only seeks to clarify that using /127's (or for thayler: "two
> addresses on a single link, which may coincidentally be adjacent
> addresses") is common operations practice and should be supported by
> routing equipment vendors.
>
> -chris
> (can we call the question in a clean/new email about adoption pls?
> There was interest in the room for same.)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
