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

Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-02.txt



Hi,

Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote
  in <20091026214501.DF8C23A6950@core3.amsl.com>:

In> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
In> This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the IETF.
In>
In>
In> 	Title           : Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers
In> 	Author(s)       : H. Singh, et al.
In> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-02.txt
In> 	Pages           : 14
In> 	Date            : 2009-10-26

(Section 4.1)
 | When the router is attached to the WAN interface link it must act as
 | an IPv6 host for the purposes of IPv6 interface initialisation, ND
 | Router Discovery, Prefix Discovery and interface address assignment
 | ([RFC4861]/[RFC4862]).  The router acts as a requesting router for
 | the purposes of DHCP prefix delegation ([RFC3633]).

 I think this description is unclear whether the router must "act as
 an IPv6 host" on WAN side even after interface initialization or not.
 More specifically, 1) we should set or not the R-bit in Neighbor
 Advertisement messages on WAN side, and 2) the WAN interface can
 respond to Router Solicitation messages or not.

 IMO when the CE router is working as an IPv6 router (IsRouter flag in
 RFC4861 is enabled) after the provisioning, the IPv6 router behavior
 of Neighbor Discovery makes sense.  If the IP forwarding is disabled
 for some reason, acting as a host on WAN interface link would be
 reasonable for re-initialization.

 Anyway, the description in Section 4.1 can be improved by making this
 point (when it must act as a host and when it must act as a router)
 clear.

-- Hiroki

Attachment: pgptgXigFDwzA.pgp
Description: PGP signature