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

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>]

Ole,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ole Troan
> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 4:29 AM
> To: Mark Smith
> Cc: IPv6 Operations
> Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-03.txt
> 
> 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.

Why can't a CPE router send unicast RAs to other CPE
routers as long as they are not malicious and do not
in any way conflict with the RAs sent by SP routers?

Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> I don't know of any service provider either who would like to see RAs
> from an IPv6 CE router.
> 
> cheers,
> Ole