Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Le 15/09/2010 17:27, Hesham Soliman a écrit :


=>   That can work but I don't understand why you don't like the
host on egress interface behaviour. The RFC seems inconsistent
on its requirements for the egress interface at home, but it's
been a long time since I read it so I may have forgotten some of
the reasons. I think it can work and at least it will lead to a
consistent implementation.

I am not sure which RFC you mean seem inconsistent?  If rfc3963 -
yes, it says MR MAY use the received RAs on the egress interface to
autoconfigure an address and form a default route.  However, I
think in practice pure linux does not do it (or am I missing radvd
procsys options?).  One would have to check the public NEMOv6
implementations too.  Without NEMOv6 implementation this does not
work (i.e. that MAY is interpreted as a no on pure linux).  With
it I don't know.

=>  Ok but now you're talking about an implementation issue. 3963
allows the router to act as a host on its egress at home. Either we
change implementations or the RFC needs to be changed. Kernel
implementations need ro change anyway to support nemov6.


I myself have forgotten many of the reasons.  I think I vaguely
remember Pascal insisting of that being MR-autoconfigure an
address as a MAY because IIRC a Cisco router would autoconfigure an
address and a default route.  I am not very precise on this
remembering.

=>  I also think what he suggested makes sense. Which means the MR
would act the same way at home or on a visited link when it comes to
listening to RAs.

I think MR is good to act as a router on the home link and even some
times offer a default route to someone in the home link needing one.
And that makes it MUST send RAs sometimes.

So it adds little argument to the need for dhc extensions.

In a sense, yes, right, little from NEMOv6 spec requires dhc extensions.
 It is more of my current stubordness requiring dhc extensions to
deliver a default route to a Mobile Router at home.

Alex

If you mean RFC4861 then I think it is consistent andgood it has
this distinction between Host and Router (Router doesn't
autoconfigure a default route, etc.).

=>  I was talking about 3963. 4861 is fine in this respect.

Hesham





_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]