On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 16:52, Alexandru Petrescu < alexandru.petre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why? The Linux Kernel supports RFC 4191, for example. >> > > Yes, linux kernel would support it, as a Host. The CPE is not a Host. > (yes, a flag may exist to force it be a Router _and_ listen to RA - but > is that flag standard). For the kernel, I believe all you need to do is enable forwarding separately on the upstream and downstream interfaces instead of enabling forwarding globally (but I'm not 100% sure so feel free to correct me if that's wrong). That said, regardless of how it needs to be implemented, Linux-based CPEs have to do it already if they implement RFC 6204. > If one wants to deliver specific routes to a CPE box one would't use >>> RAs, because routers ignore much of info in them. >>> >>> >> RFC 6204 specifies how IPv6 CPEs should listen to default routes in >> router advertisements. The CPEs could listen to more-specific routes as >> well. >> > > This may mean one may need to: (1) modify RFC6204 to cover specific routes > as well, (2) modify RFC4191 to cover Routers as well, (3) modify RFC6204 to > do cellular base stations as well, in addition to CPE of ADSL-type. > As for #1 and #2, RFC 6024 doesn't explicitly specify what CPEs should listen to in RAs. I mentioned the default route earlier, but it mentions lots of other things too (e.g., the prefix information option to do SLAAC on the ISP-side interface, the L bit, and so on). If the CPE doesn't already support RFC 4191 (which is possible, if it's just using the standard Linux code), then it needs a code change regardless of whether you want to use DHCPv6 or RFC 4194. As for #3: RFC 6204 doesn't specify any specific technology, and it's certainly not limited to ADSL. Much of the behaviour it specifies is equally applicable to CPEs whose uplink is a cellular link.
_______________________________________________ mif mailing list mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
