ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05

2016-03-10 08:26:26
Hi,

I understand the recommendation and find it reasonable, Are members of the DHC 
WG aware of this usage?

Thanks

Roni

 

From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lorenzo(_at_)google(_dot_)com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 4:59 PM
To: Roni Even
Cc: 
draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability(_dot_)all(_at_)tools(_dot_)ietf(_dot_)org;
 IETF Discussion; gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05

 

Roni,

 

thanks for the review. To respond to your comment:

 

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Roni Even 
<ron(_dot_)even(_dot_)tlv(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

Small question: In section 6 last bullet “While [RFC3633] assumes that the 
DHCPv6 client is a router, DHCPv6 PD itself does not require that the client 
forward IPv6 packets not addressed to itself, and thus does not require that 
the client be an IPv6 router as defined in [RFC2460].”

Is this a good practice to recommend?

Also I understand that in the here the recommendation is that all IPv6 packets 
will be addressed to the DHCPv6 client (not a router) and this is why he will 
not forward them.

 

The intent here is to say that while the DHCPv6 PD RFC uses the words 
"requesting router" to denote the DHCP client, is nothing in DHCPv6 PD itself 
that requires the PD client to be a router (where, in IPv6, the term "router" 
is defined in RFC2460).

 

So - even though the DHCPv6 PD RFC uses the term "requesting router", a host 
can use DHCPv6 PD to receive a prefix as well. The host can pick some addresses 
for that prefix for its own use, originate/terminate packets on those 
addresses, and not forward packets addressed to any of the other addresses in 
the prefix.

 

Regards,

Lorenzo

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>