Le 12/09/2010 01:03, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
=> I thought we were discussing the specific issue of how to
solve this problem in _this_WG_ as I mentioned in my first email.
I know what the RFC says and I wouldn't have done it this way but
given this, I don't know how else you can solve it _here_.
I am open to solve it here and I have suggestion :
- make DHCPv6-PD-NEMO assign a default route to the Mobile Router
What do you think?
=> That can work but I don't understand why you don't like the host
on egress interface behaviour.
What do you mean more precisely MR be host on the egress interface? Do
you mean to set forward=0 for that particular interface on linux
(/proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/egress/ip_forward). IF so then that will allow
the MR to acquire a default route and an address on its egress interface
at home, but will not allow to forward packets on that interface which
is bad for a Router.
Do you mean something else when you say to make Host on the egress
interface of the Mobile Router? (other than resetting that forward flag).
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. Extending DHCP can work
but whether it's done here or in dhc or mif is not really important
I also followed advice and went asking to DHC WG. I got redirected
to MIF soon-Charter DHCP options route table, and got mentioned
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router req W-3 talking DHCPv6-PD and
Ietf mailing list