Re: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 section 2.3

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Mon, 28 March 2011 12:20 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25F003A688B for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.537
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wcoYSMU7DebW for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A85D3A67F0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:20:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach.fuaim.com [206.197.161.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3486F8816E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clemson.jhuapl.edu (unknown [128.244.243.28]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C444130002 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4D907D77.1030904@innovationslab.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:22:15 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 section 2.3
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103281015240.4842@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103281015240.4842@uplift.swm.pp.se>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:20:42 -0000

Hi Mikael,

On 3/28/11 4:25 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> 
> Hello.
> 
> I read through 2.3 of the draft, and I am a bit unclear as to how the
> next-hop should be selected.
> 
> In the case of my SLAAC machine, I see the next-hop for my default-route
> as a LL address. How would the SA and the default router LL be tied
> together?

One way would be for the stack to keep track of which router's LL
address was the source of the PIO containing the prefix used to generate
the address.

> 
> In the case of getting address using DHCPv6, there is also no direct
> connection between the default route and the SA, as the DHCPv6 server
> might be different from the default-route gw?

Does the DHCPv6 response contain any information about the DHCP-relay used?

Regards,
Brian