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 --------------------------------------------------------------------