Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-05

[Vint Cerf <[e-mail]>]

when a host forwards packets it's a router. It is not a fixed state.

v


On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 11:29 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 6:07 AM, Jari Arkko <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> > So - even though the DHCPv6 PD RFC uses the term "requesting router", a
>> host can use DHCPv6 PD to receive a prefix as well. The host can pick some
>> addresses for that prefix for its own use, originate/terminate packets on
>> those addresses, and not forward packets addressed to any of the other
>> addresses in the prefix.
>>
>> Lorenzo: Personally, I think it would perhaps useful to consider a slight
>> reformulation of the text, given that for things like tethering or virtual
>> machines, hosts essentially become routers.
>
>
> Personally I agree. I think hosts are routers that are currently not
> forwarding packets
>
>  However, this topic generated a lot of heat in the WG, with people
> arguing vocally on both sides. So it was not easy to come up with this
> text. There's also the fact that the IPv6 specification (RFC 2460 itself)
> defines hosts and routers, and if we made a statement on the matter, we
> might have had to formally update RFC 2460, which we did not want to
> attempt. (Bob, is this something that could be re-examined in 2460bis? I
> think defining a router as "a node that forwards packets" and a host as "a
> node that's not a router" is a bit simplistic these days, particularly when
> a node decides to enable forwarding between some set of its interfaces but
> not all.)
>
> Going back to the text - Jari, do you have a suggestion on how to reword
> this? The main reason that text is there is because a small number of WG
> participants said, "we can't use DHCPv6 PD on hosts because DHCPv6 PD is
> for routers and hosts aren't routers". We wanted to clarify that.
>



-- 
New postal address:
Google
1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor
Reston, VA 20190