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

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 05:43, Alexandru Petrescu <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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.
>

"Node" is defined by RFC 2460 as "a device that implements IPv6"


> 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.
>

Nope. The CPE is a node, and thus per RFC 6434 (IPv6 node requirements) it
SHOULD implement RFC 4191 if it's deployed in a SOHO environment.


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

The linux kernel supports it, I believe.


> 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?
>

I think RFC 4191 has much richer semantics (multiple sources of
information, early deprecation, deprecation when the router originally
crashes). So I would prefer RFC 4191. As we know from this thread, others
disagree. :-)