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

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



Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote
  in <2bbba3c10911030123t66c2d4adi2d8f0fe83a6fbfb7@mail.gmail.com>:

ot> Hiroki,
ot> 
ot> > (Section 4.1)
ot> >  | When the router is attached to the WAN interface link it must act as
ot> >  | an IPv6 host for the purposes of IPv6 interface initialisation, ND
ot> >  | Router Discovery, Prefix Discovery and interface address assignment
ot> >  | ([RFC4861]/[RFC4862]).  The router acts as a requesting router for
ot> >  | the purposes of DHCP prefix delegation ([RFC3633]).
ot> >
ot> >  I think this description is unclear whether the router must "act as
ot> >  an IPv6 host" on WAN side even after interface initialization or not.
ot> >  More specifically, 1) we should set or not the R-bit in Neighbor
ot> >  Advertisement messages on WAN side, and 2) the WAN interface can
ot> >  respond to Router Solicitation messages or not.
ot> 
ot> for the purposes of SLAAC, router discovery etc it should always act
ot> as a host on the WAN interface. it should not reply to RS messages nor
ot> set the R-bit in NAs.

 Thank you for the clarification.  Correct me if I am wrong, but in my
 understanding, for router discovery and SLAAC the node must
 accept/process RAs and must discard received RSes.  This means
 "acting as a host", but is there a technical reason to always set
 R-bit in NAs zero?  A CE router has a moment of transition from a
 host to a router (after provisioning, for example) and vice versa as
 viewed from the PE router, so making R-bit depend on whether IP
 forwarding is enabled or not still seems reasonable to me.

 Even if doing so the R-bit should not prevent the CE router from
 router discovery or SLAAC.  While pretending a host by always setting
 the R-bit zero would work certainly, to me there is no strong reason
 to disable the functionality.

 So, I think acting as a host with regard to RS/RA is needed on WAN
 interface, but NS/NA do not always need to do so.  Is this a wrong
 idea?  What I mean in writing is something like the following:

 | 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]) except that the Router flag in Solicited
 | Neighbor Advertisement messages MUST be set to one if IP forwarding
 | is enabled; otherwise it MUST be set to zero ([RFC4861] Section 7.2.4).

-- Hiroki

Attachment: pgp7xaBiun7vn.pgp
Description: PGP signature