On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:55:18 +0200 (EET) Pekka Savola <pek...@netcore.fi> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011, Thomas Narten wrote: > >> This message starts a 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing: > > > >> Title : IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis > >> Author(s) : E. Jankiewicz, et al. > >> Filename : draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-07.txt > >> Pages : 26 > >> Date : 2010-12-16 > >> > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-07 > > > >> as an Informational RFC. Substantive comments and statements of > >> support for advancing this document should be directed to the > >> mailing list. Editorial suggestions can be sent to the authors. > >> This last call will end on January 6, 2011. > > > RFC4191 (Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes) should be > discussed. Is this a MAY? Quite a few host implementations already support > it. > I think this should be a MUST, or at least a SHOULD, as the simple CPE draft relies on this capability to support routing between internal subnets if the WAN link is down - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-09 G-5: By default if the IPv6 CE router is an advertising router and loses its IPv6 default router(s) on the WAN interface, it MUST explicitly invalidate itself as an IPv6 default router on each of its advertising interfaces by immediately transmitting one or more Router Advertisement messages with the "Router Lifetime" field set to zero [RFC4861]. and L-3: An IPv6 CE router MUST advertise itself as a router for the delegated prefix(es) (and ULA prefix if configured to provide ULA addressing) using the "Route Information Option" specified in section 2.3 of [RFC4191]. This advertisement is independent of having IPv6 connectivity on the WAN interface or not. Regards, Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
