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
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
=> 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.
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.
Ietf mailing list