Re: NOTE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt

[itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino)]

> > > So, if router A has good reason to believe that router B advertises
> > > a different set of prefixes, I see nothing unusual about A sending
> > > RSs to B (and getting RAs back from B) to discover the different
> > > prefixes.
> > 
> > 	i guess i mentioned it in the past, if we allow routers to advertise
> > 	different set of prefixes (which is the case now with RFC2462) and
> > 	allow routers to autoconfigure themselves with RA, we go into
> > 	bootstraap problem when router reboots.  i consider autoconfiguring
> > 	router is a dangerous idea, and "hybrid router" idea is too.
> 
> So, I don't see a particularly good reason to disallow a device from
> having distinct router-like and host-like ports, especially if the
> strong multihoming model is in effect, so the device doesn't forward
> packets to or from the hostlike ports.

	i think the above is "give people guns to shoot their own foot"
	approach.  i think the stability of router infrastructure is more
	important than permitting "shoot their own foot" config.

	for autoconfiguring novice user's home router (where routers would
	need to be autoconfigured with /48 prefix), we have prefix delegation
	proposal.

itojun