IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] RFC4861 question - short prefixes in PIOs

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com> Fri, 28 June 2019 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96222120250; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 09:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <0KYJszyHnLgQ>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Cc"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 0KYJszyHnLgQ; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 09:32:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo6-tun.hq.phicoh.net [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E76041202E8; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 09:32:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) (Smail #157) id m1hgtnL-0000JLC; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 18:32:15 +0200
Message-Id: <m1hgtnL-0000JLC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
Cc: 6man <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC4861 question - short prefixes in PIOs
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <729f46ec4a8b419797e15bbdcac3e549@boeing.com> <4615.1561671634@localhost>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 27 Jun 2019 17:40:34 -0400 ." <4615.1561671634@localhost>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 18:32:14 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/yHcRdkZ4onu0jTvlUfjj8fdPrYw>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:32:34 -0000

>Hairpin'ing all traffic through the advertising router when L=0 seems like
>the only general solution.  But, I can imagine many situations where if a
>Neighbour Cache entry somehow existed, then it could be used.

Note that the router may send redirects. So in theory it is only the
first packet to a neighbor that needs to go through the router.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email