On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 10:17 PM, Mark Smith <i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> wrote: > 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 -
I did say 'not a cpe device'... I would point out that a /64 with your customer on it is a very large place to hide :) (nd probing/scraping probably finds the customer easily, but strikes me as heavyweight to find a customer you know is at the end of a ptp dlci/vc) > 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. > these seem good though, in principle. I wonder how (probably not for this list/discussion though) this works out in practice. I still hold to the 'anyone who uses RA for router (real router, not cpe) interface address assignment is headed for disaster' there's no way to manage/monitor/maintain/etc in a non-deterministic config such as that. operations folks heads will explode :( Thanks! -Chris > > >> 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
