Re: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 section 2.3

Mikael Abrahamsson <> Mon, 28 March 2011 12:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03A213A680A for <>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.263
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.263 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.264, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W3weCAkTt0Ho for <>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:35:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F06D83A67E4 for <>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:35:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 501) id D78EE9C; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:36:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D53899A for <>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:36:51 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:36:51 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
Subject: Re: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 section 2.3
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:35:16 -0000

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Brian Haberman wrote:

> Hi Mikael,
> On 3/28/11 4:25 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> Hello.
>> I read through 2.3 of the draft, and I am a bit unclear as to how the
>> next-hop should be selected.
>> In the case of my SLAAC machine, I see the next-hop for my default-route
>> as a LL address. How would the SA and the default router LL be tied
>> together?
> One way would be for the stack to keep track of which router's LL
> address was the source of the PIO containing the prefix used to generate
> the address.

I realise this is a possibility, but shouldn't there be a mention in the 
draft of recommended mechanisms to achieve this goal?

>> In the case of getting address using DHCPv6, there is also no direct
>> connection between the default route and the SA, as the DHCPv6 server
>> might be different from the default-route gw?
> Does the DHCPv6 response contain any information about the DHCP-relay used?

If the DHCPv6 server is just local to the network and doesn't use a relay?

Afaik there has been a deliberate decoupling of stateful DHCPv6 and SLAAC 
so as to make DHCPv6 not able to hand out a default routes, so I don't 
really see how this coupling can be done again with the basic mechanisms 
available today?

In v6ops I was pointed to BRDP 
<> which is an 
expired draft, I believe a mechanism like this is needed to properly 
achieve the goal of correct default route for certain SA. I don't really 
see how it can be done otherwise.

Mikael Abrahamsson    email: