On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:57:12 +0200 Sander Steffann <san...@steffann.nl> wrote:
> Hi, > > > By setting the Router Lifetime to 0 in the RA, that'd stop the router > > being used as a default router. However, then you'd need a DHCPv6 > > option to convey the default router. That still wouldn't eliminate the > > need for the RA though, as it is still being used to express the > > address configuration policy, so it pretty much makes a DHCPv6 > > default router option somewhat redundant. You may as well just set > > the RA Router Lifetime to a non-zero value to express the identity of > > the default router. > > Unless you want to assign different default routers to different clients. I > don't know if this should be taken into account, but it is a possibility... > I'd wonder if there are examples of that being done in IPv4. I can't really think of a real world situation I've experienced in IPv4 where I'd find that capability useful. Poor mans first hop router redundancy might be a possibility, however usually if you care that much about that redundancy, you'd buy a couple of routers that do HSRP, VRRP etc. IPv6's basic anycast mechanism would provide a better solution than half/half. Phasing out an old router and bringing in a new one might appear to be a situation where it'd be useful, however I'd think it'd be just as easy to achieve by winding down the RA Router Lifetime of the old router and announcing a new one until all the end-nodes have stopped using the old one. It also creates trust issues because you'd be selecting clients based on one of a number of identifying parameters that they're in control of. In the environments Mikael seems to be describing that level of trust doesn't sound like it exists. Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
