[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments



On Mar 23, 2009, at 16:39, Ole Troan wrote:
From Section 1 of RFC 4191:

We use Router Advertisement messages, instead of some other protocol like RIP [RFC2080], because Router Advertisements are an existing standard,
stable protocol for router-to-host communication. Piggybacking this
information on existing message traffic from routers to hosts reduces
network overhead. Neighbor Discovery shares with Multicast Listener
Discovery the property that they both define host-to-router interactions,
while shielding the host from having to participate in more general
router-to-router interactions. In addition, RIP is unsuitable because it does not carry route lifetimes so it requires frequent message traffic with
greater processing overheads.

indeed. MSR is a router-to-host mechanism. the CPE acts for some
purposes as a host on the upstream interface. do you expect the MSR
routes to be limited to be used only for the host part of the CPE (i.e
communication originating from the CPE) or to make it into the CPE's
forwarding table?


Yes, naturally.  Why not?

If I were planning to implement a CPE router that processed received RA with RFC 4191 MSR options, I'm pretty sure I would do it so that the routes used by the node implementation were the same routes used by the forwarding implementation. It would be a lot of extra hassle to maintain two route tables, and the payoff would seem quite unclear to me.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering