Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-03.txt

[Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>]

Mark,

> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:09:21 -0800
> Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>> I will open a WGLC on this after new years; My mind will be elsewhere  
>> for the coming two weeks, I imagine yours will as well. However, if  
>> you want to start reading/commenting now...
>> 
> 
> I hope I'm not going to look silly because I've missed it, however, do
> these CPE (as they are routers) issue RAs on their WAN interface? I'd
> think a statement relating to whether they do or don't, and if they do,
> what options MUST/MUST NOT etc. are permitted should be covered in the
> WAN interface section.
> 
> (as a side note, a possible use for these CPE issuing RAs is to
> announce support of optional capabilities - I'm thinking about the idea
> of prefix-redirects for more optimal inter-CPE traffic flow, and a
> prefix-redirect capability announcement to the upstream provider
> routers in the CPE's WAN RAs would allow the provider routers to know
> not to send prefix-redirects to CPE that don't support that capability)

is not the following (reformatted) requirement not clear enough?

W-1:  When the router is attached to the WAN interface link it MUST
         act as an IPv6 host for the purposes of stateless or stateful
         interface address assignment ([RFC4862]/[RFC3315]).  The router
         MUST act as a requesting router for the purposes of DHCP prefix
         delegation ([RFC3633]).

"acting as a host" is the key here. feel free to suggest better text if you don't think that's clear enough.

the WAN interface which is a host for some purposes and a router for others is stretching the definitions in RFC4861 already. having an interface which can do both RS and RA at the same time would be stretching it too far. I don't know of any service provider either who would like to see RAs from an IPv6 CE router.

cheers,
Ole