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

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Mon, 28 March 2011 12:34 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.com>
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 08ACF3A68D5 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.673
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.673 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 RASlZFKsAm5M for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com (sj-iport-4.cisco.com [171.68.10.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F2313A67E4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 05:34:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; l=1075; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1301315777; x=1302525377; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=GYiwjh3a1eY9tMiMVeA9rswzuWZX9h6g54hZbaKUVlY=; b=B0Zr16IyC+e9TVNhIiAtWJOPnOtzWeEmX6ddtgleqVRFmwpHM0wbcqmP N7O+IDImRAAKEvOCHUjY2m0fBB4L5eLLKmGRMSQO9A3DSbsEPbOX0SIur TELLDHai9GRAPNImyzVHZxjlku/UE0HYRZ3NRLDUfqvlf7gXrX5XAvHqU s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgYBAJeAkE2tJV2c/2dsb2JhbACYAI0/d6cEm2CFaQSFOosX
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,255,1299456000"; d="scan'208";a="281579386"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2011 12:36:17 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com [72.163.63.8]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p2SCaHRa006246; Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:36:17 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-109.cisco.com ([72.163.62.151]) by xbh-rcd-301.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 28 Mar 2011 07:36:17 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 section 2.3
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 07:36:16 -0500
Message-ID: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C30121E5C1@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103281015240.4842@uplift.swm.pp.se>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 section 2.3
Thread-Index: AcvtIbvCmfPUTJ7IQcmFCZdLN21r7gAIl4KA
References: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103281015240.4842@uplift.swm.pp.se>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se>, <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2011 12:36:17.0151 (UTC) FILETIME=[BB9F00F0:01CBED44]
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 12:34:41 -0000

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 10:25 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 section
2.3

Mikael,

>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?

It's the IPv6 default router for the DHCPv6 client that sends a RA with
the M-bit set and seeing such an RA the client initiates DHCPv6.  Or the
client could initiate DHCPv6 even on receiving an RA with the M-bit
cleared.  But the fact still remains that the DHCPv6 client did receive
an RA from the IPv6 first-hop router to the client.  The client is
supposed to perform router discovery and send RS.  The RA lets the
client know what the default router is.  If I missed anything, perhaps
if you could please draw a diagram and let us know what specific use
case I missed.

Thanks,

Hemant