Re: RFC6434bis open issue - RFC4191 text

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 11/07/2017 08:48 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> TimW and I would like to get some list feedback on some open issues in the draft in advance of the Singapore WG session.
> 
> The first topic is whether the text on RFC4191 is now acceptable, i.e.:
> 
> — snip —
> 
> 5.9.  Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes - RFC 4191
> 
>    "Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes" [RFC4191]
>    provides support for nodes attached to multiple (different) networks,
>    each providing routers that advertise themselves as default routers
>    via Router Advertisements.  In some scenarios, one router may provide
>    connectivity to destinations the other router does not, and choosing
>    the "wrong" default router can result in reachability failures.  In
>    order to resolve this scenario IPv6 Nodes MUST implement [RFC4191]
>    and SHOULD implement Type C host role.

Without looking at RFC4191... I assume this "Type C" thing is part of
FC4191, and hence s asubset of it?

Then I wonder if the text should read: MUST implement Type C host role,
and SHOULD implement RFC4191?  (You want the Type C functionality, and
implementing the rest of rfc4191 is desired, but not required?)


In any case: since RFC4191 has stuff for routers and for hosts, and
"Node" (as in "node requirements") encompasses both hosts and routers...
What kind of requirements we want for host and routers? The same level
of requirements for both? Or something else?

Cheers,

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492