Re: [mif] Route option for DHCPv6 - next steps?

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 25/04/2012 11:03, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 21:20, Alexandru Petrescu
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>            W-1:  When the router is attached to the WAN interface link,
>         it MUST
>                  act as an IPv6 host for the purposes of stateless
>         [RFC4862] or
>                  stateful [RFC3315] interface address assignment.
>
>
>     That is not enough for specific routes.  Ok it covers the default
>     routes, but not specific routes such as rfc4191.
>
>
> Sure. But RFC 6204 also doesn't say "must implement a DHCPv6 route
> option". So if you want to ensure that the CE router can configure
> more-specific routes, you have to modify RFC 6204 either way.

Right, so either way RFC 6204 wouldn't be enough when one wants to 
achieve DHCP route-options neither DHCP default routes.

> In one case, you need to modify it to say "must implement a DHCPv6 route
> option". In the other, you need to modify it to say "must implement RFC
> 4191". Note that the RFC already says that "nodes that will be deployed
> in SOHO environments SHOULD implement RFC 4191", so RFC 4191 is likely
> already implemented.

What does that "nodes" mean?  In that RFC 6204 context I guess it means 
all entities in the SOHO except the CPE.

At most, I think it means that the CPE sends 4191 RAs to SOHO Hosts 
which neead to read 4191 RAs.  I don't think it means a CPE router to 
read 4191 RAs sent by CPE+1 ISP routers.

A router to read 4191-specific-route does not exist today.

In this case, what would one prefer to specify - a 4191 router to read 
specific routes from 4191?  Or a DHCP Client already doing Prefix 
Delegation (a Requesting Router) to read DHCP route options and default 
route options?

Alex