Re: RFC7084

[Erik Kline <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 12:02 AM, STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  RFC7084-compliant CE routers are defined to work in an environment where
> the access network makes the rules. RFC7084-compliant CE routers, by
> definition of the scope of that RFC, must be able to operate in the access
> networks defined by CableLabs and BBF, at the very least. These CE routers
> don’t get to make the rules. The supported-for-interoperability access
> networks include ones that require IA_NA for proper operation. They also
> include ones that do “unnumbered” model and use only IA_PD. They even
> include access networks that support SLAAC + IA_PD (with no IA_NA). An
> RFC7084-compliant CE router will automatically work in all of these access
> networks, with no special configuration. This was a core goal of the
> requirements in RFC7084.
>
>
>
> If an access network is designed to require CE routers to acquire IA_NA,
> then that CE router needs to acquire the IA_NA in order to function on that
> access network. This is not negotiable, and is not something the CE router
> can “choose” not to do because it doesn’t feel like it. It was agreed that
> an access network that expects IA_NA to be requested will signal this by
> always setting M=1 in its RA messages. If the access network does not set
> M=1, it cannot be sure the CE router will request IA_NA. If it does set
> M=1, it **can** be sure the RFC7084-compliant CE router will request
> IA_NA.
>
>
Do these networks also support hosts plugging in directly?

Designing a network where DHCPv6 is a MUST would seem to me to be a
violation of the stated node requirements, where it is merely a SHOULD.