Re: RFC6434bis open issue - RFC4191 text

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 11/07/2017 09:15 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> On 7 Nov 2017, at 12:11, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> 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?)
> 
> It’s in Section 3.1 of RFC4191; the crux of it is:

May question would be: What you want is that all hosts iplement RFC4191,
and that by default they behave like Type C hosts?

If so, I'd say something like "MUST implement RFC4191 and SHOULD employ
the Type C host model"  ("*implement* Type C host model" was a bit
confusing to me). -- but ...well.. English as second language here, so...




>> 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?
> 
> Node Requirements is focused on hosts, but not exclusively.  Router-specific functionality is included in one section, see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc6434-bis-02#section-14.

Me, I'd use "hosts" if you refer only to functionality expected in only
hosts, "routers" when it is only meant for routers, and "nodes" when
referring to both.


> 
> There is also draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs-00 over in v6ops, but that’s not been updated since May as far as I can tell.  It would be interesting to know if the authors are still progressing this.  I’ll pop Russ a mail.

Good grief!

Thanks!

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