Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO) to Proposed Standard

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 15/09/2010 17:27, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
>
>
>>> =>   That can work but I don't understand why you don't like the
>>> host on egress interface behaviour. The RFC seems inconsistent
>>> on its requirements for the egress interface at home, but it's
>>> been a long time since I read it so I may have forgotten some of
>>> the reasons. I think it can work and at least it will lead to a
>>> consistent implementation.
>>
>> I am not sure which RFC you mean seem inconsistent?  If rfc3963 -
>> yes, it says MR MAY use the received RAs on the egress interface to
>> autoconfigure an address and form a default route.  However, I
>> think in practice pure linux does not do it (or am I missing radvd
>> procsys options?).  One would have to check the public NEMOv6
>> implementations too.  Without NEMOv6 implementation this does not
>> work (i.e. that MAY is interpreted as a no on pure linux).  With
>> it I don't know.
>
> =>  Ok but now you're talking about an implementation issue. 3963
> allows the router to act as a host on its egress at home. Either we
> change implementations or the RFC needs to be changed. Kernel
> implementations need ro change anyway to support nemov6.
>
>>
>> I myself have forgotten many of the reasons.  I think I vaguely
>> remember Pascal insisting of that being MR-autoconfigure an
>> address as a MAY because IIRC a Cisco router would autoconfigure an
>> address and a default route.  I am not very precise on this
>> remembering.
>
> =>  I also think what he suggested makes sense. Which means the MR
> would act the same way at home or on a visited link when it comes to
> listening to RAs.

I think MR is good to act as a router on the home link and even some
times offer a default route to someone in the home link needing one.
And that makes it MUST send RAs sometimes.

> So it adds little argument to the need for dhc extensions.

In a sense, yes, right, little from NEMOv6 spec requires dhc extensions.
  It is more of my current stubordness requiring dhc extensions to
deliver a default route to a Mobile Router at home.

Alex

>> If you mean RFC4861 then I think it is consistent andgood it has
>> this distinction between Host and Router (Router doesn't
>> autoconfigure a default route, etc.).
>
> =>  I was talking about 3963. 4861 is fine in this respect.
>
> Hesham
>
>
>