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

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 12/09/2010 01:03, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
>
>>> =>   I thought we were discussing the specific issue of how to
>>> solve this problem in _this_WG_ as I mentioned in my first email.
>>> I know what the RFC says and I wouldn't have done it this way but
>>> given this, I don't know how else you can solve it _here_.
>>
>> I am open to solve it here and I have suggestion :
>>
>> - make DHCPv6-PD-NEMO assign a default route to the Mobile Router
>> at home.
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> =>  That can work but I don't understand why you don't like the host
> on egress interface behaviour.

What do you mean more precisely MR be host on the egress interface?  Do
you mean to set forward=0 for that particular interface on linux
(/proc/sys/net/ipv6/conf/egress/ip_forward).  IF so then that will allow 
the MR to acquire a default route and an address on its egress interface 
at home, but will not allow to forward packets on that interface which 
is bad for a Router.

Do you mean something else when you say to make  Host on the egress 
interface of the Mobile Router? (other than resetting that forward flag).

Alex

> 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. Extending DHCP can work
> but whether it's done here or in dhc or mif is not really important
> to me.
>
> Hesham
>
>>
>> I also followed advice and went asking to DHC WG.  I got redirected
>> to MIF soon-Charter DHCP options route table, and got mentioned
>> draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router req W-3 talking DHCPv6-PD and
>> default route.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Hesham
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>