Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 18:57, Laganier, Julien a écrit :
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 11:58, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 10/09/10 7:55 PM, "Alexandru
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
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.
=> Ok, so you're happy with it being half host half router
when it's away from home?
When it is away from home it is fully a Host on the egress
interface. When at home fully Router on same. I am happy with it
If so then let it do the same at home. Otherwise, I don't know
how you want to fix this in this WG.
It would mean to specify it to be a at home, be first a Host (get
default route) then change and become a Router, but still at home.
This behaviour could be set in the DHCPv6-PD-NEMO draft, being
under discussion now.
This is a non issue for this draft. This is not specific to NEMO but
generic to any DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation setup where the requesting
router needs to configures an address on its north side.
Right... and a default route - that's the blocking point to me: I have
all this shiny software and RFC but no automatic default route, I have
to manually configure it.
If you agree that this is generic to DHCPv6 prefix delegation and not limited
to this specific application of DHCPv6 prefix delegation to a NEMO environment,
then this draft can proceed.
If you are missing a mechanism to get a default route on a DHCPv6 prefix
delegation requesting router, you can write a draft and submit it to the DHC WG.
I also don't know what the problem is on most cases. Presumably the requesting
router's default route is to send packet to the delegating router.
It can do so as per the deployment specifics, including, but not
limited to, acting as a host on the north interface and as a router
on south interfaces -- please remember that Neighbor Discovery is
specified on a per-interface basis.
It's not sufficient to say Mobile Router always acts as a Host on the
North interface. Because it must act as a Router too on its North
interface. It must join the all-routers multicast address on the home
link, in order to forward packets from hosts on the home links towards
If you don't like my default route comment then you could also just
write in DHCPv6-PD-NEMO "this does not configure a default route on the
Mobile Router, neither SLAAC".
You agreed earlier that this is generic to DHCPv6 prefix delegation and not
specific to NEMO so this draft is NOT the place to digress on default routes
for DHCPv6 prefix delegation.
[ I also note that this draft has been more than 2 years in the MEXT
working group in which you are participating, which gave you ample
time to comment on this and other things... ]
Note taken and I owe explanation. If you wish consider my comments
non-blocking, as comments to a soon-to-be-Request-For-Comments.
As you agreed earlier that this is generic to DHCPv6 prefix delegation and not
specific to NEMO I do not consider this as blocking.
I simply did not have neither the software nor the network testbed to
prototype until now. Obtaining that is not easy, takes planning and
time. E.g. a stable DHCPv6-PD was available only lately from ISC
despite early initial availability. It was mainly written for ISP-to-House
deployments which are very different than Mobile Router moving around.
If you wish too, you could bring it back from IESG to here and I will
comment further on it to work with real Relay, to solve
the sync between Prefix Table, Routing Table, radvd.conf, lease file,
to require Relay to insert route (currently it doesn't!), to respect 'M',
and so on.
We are not bringing it back to the MEXT WG for something that is not related to
the MEXT WG but generic to DHCPv6 prefix delegation.
Or we could just deliver to IESG and see past. I am fine with all
This is what we are doing.
If you really think there's a missing piece, write a draft and submit it to the
Ietf mailing list