Re: Re: [v6ops] RFC7084

Ray Hunter <> Wed, 11 December 2013 11:25 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6070F1AC862; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 03:25:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.121
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.121 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o8tpS2uBkFsv; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 03:25:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:62e::2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E921AC82B; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 03:25:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6567E87145B; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 12:25:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4xDGD9XceIJF; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 12:25:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Rays-iMac-2.local (unknown []) (Authenticated sender: by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 298BD870F98; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 12:25:06 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 12:25:05 +0100
From: Ray Hunter <>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.8 (Macintosh/20130427)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <>
Subject: Re: Re: [v6ops] RFC7084
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 6man WG <>, "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:25:14 -0000

Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:14 PM, Ole Troan <> wrote:
>> that's incorrect. there are no flags in the RA that indicates if prefix delegation is available or not.   prefix delegation is between routers, routers don't listen to RAs was the rationale.
> It's certainly true that RFC 4861 doesn't mention prefix delegation, and this is a plausible rationale for not doing so.   However, the HG is clearly a router, and it's being required to listen to RAs, so the distinction you are making is _extremely_ artificial.

Actually I happen to think the distinction between labeling a _device_
as a "router" or an "end node" is itself artificial.

There are plenty of functions where a typical CPE device has to function
as an end node (basically for anything where it is terminating traffic).

I think it would be better to make the distinction between "router" and
"end node" based on whether the _traffic_ is being forwarded by the
device or terminated on the device.

Then for PD and SLAAC autoconfig you would have an end node that could
learn a default route or upstream interface GUA prefix via RA, and more
specific information via a routing protocol.