Le 10/09/2010 11:48, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
=> Who cares, specify it in your product description. The IETF
doesn't specify how to build products.
Hmm... to me it is a very IETF sensitive issue the Router vs Host.
For example, an ND spec says distinctively what a Host and what a
Router does, e.g. a Host does not respond to Router Solicitation.
=> Yes and it does so on a per-interface basis, not on a
Yes, and the Mobile Router is a Router on its egress interface when
connected at home, as per spec. It is that interface that needs a
default route automatically configured.
In this same way a Router should dynamically be able to obtain a
default route, in addition to a Host doing so.
The products sold are neither Hosts nor Routers - they're BFRs,
servers, desktops, tablets, laptops.
If you want to solve this with protocols then use routing
protocols. Of course you need to solve the security issues when
the MR moves.
But SLAAC (what you call ND) is not a routing protocol yet does
deliver a default route, only to Hosts. DHCPv6 is not a routing
protocol either but does not deliver a default route neither to
Hosts nor to Routers.
(I am not clear whether the DHCPv6 spec forbids delivery of a
default route; or allows; I have to check; the implementation does
I am not
sure how clean is it anyways to disregard that 'M' bit of RA
The alternative to using routing protocols (OSPF?) to
communicate a default route to the MR - I am not sure how this
could work, never seen it in practice.
=> For a good reason! You need to work out trust across
Ietf mailing list