Re: Re: [v6ops] RFC7084

Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net> Wed, 11 December 2013 11:25 UTC

Return-Path: <v6ops@globis.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6070F1AC862; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 03:25:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.121
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o8tpS2uBkFsv; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 03:25:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from globis01.globis.net (RayH-1-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:62e::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E921AC82B; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 03:25:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6567E87145B; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 12:25:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from globis01.globis.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.globis.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4xDGD9XceIJF; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 12:25:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Rays-iMac-2.local (unknown [192.168.0.3]) (Authenticated sender: Ray.Hunter@globis.net) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 298BD870F98; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 12:25:06 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <52A84B91.1000106@globis.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 12:25:05 +0100
From: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.8 (Macintosh/20130427)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [v6ops] RFC7084
References: <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DC7BB@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611303B0269@GAALPA1MSGUSR9L.ITServices.sbc.com> <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DCD72@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1312100803370.24602@uplift.swm.pp.se> <F92E1B55-C74B-400C-B83E-6B50D175D121@steffann.nl> <7B4820C5-B562-4BE7-8C6A-CBCDABC39728@nominum.com> <8185CEF1-9037-4956-B37E-0CFAE5689316@employees.org> <731AA5B7-427D-4A2C-B90E-F5A46B7C1017@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <731AA5B7-427D-4A2C-B90E-F5A46B7C1017@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=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 <otroan@employees.org> 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.

-- 
Regards,
RayH