Le 25/04/2012 11:03, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 21:20, Alexandru Petrescu
<alexandru.petre...@gmail.com <mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
W-1: When the router is attached to the WAN interface link,
it MUST
act as an IPv6 host for the purposes of stateless
[RFC4862] or
stateful [RFC3315] interface address assignment.
That is not enough for specific routes. Ok it covers the default
routes, but not specific routes such as rfc4191.
Sure. But RFC 6204 also doesn't say "must implement a DHCPv6 route
option". So if you want to ensure that the CE router can configure
more-specific routes, you have to modify RFC 6204 either way.
Right, so either way RFC 6204 wouldn't be enough when one wants to
achieve DHCP route-options neither DHCP default routes.
In one case, you need to modify it to say "must implement a DHCPv6 route
option". In the other, you need to modify it to say "must implement RFC
4191". Note that the RFC already says that "nodes that will be deployed
in SOHO environments SHOULD implement RFC 4191", so RFC 4191 is likely
already implemented.
What does that "nodes" mean? In that RFC 6204 context I guess it means
all entities in the SOHO except the CPE.
At most, I think it means that the CPE sends 4191 RAs to SOHO Hosts
which neead to read 4191 RAs. I don't think it means a CPE router to
read 4191 RAs sent by CPE+1 ISP routers.
A router to read 4191-specific-route does not exist today.
In this case, what would one prefer to specify - a 4191 router to read
specific routes from 4191? Or a DHCP Client already doing Prefix
Delegation (a Requesting Router) to read DHCP route options and default
route options?
Alex
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
