Re: [v6ops] FW: New Version Notification for draft-palet-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00.txt

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

One thing that happened to me as of late has made me consider what the CE 
should do in this situation. I think most of the text in the current 
document agrees with what would like to happen, but there might be 
opportunity for one of two new requirements.

My current situation is that I have a statically configured 6in4 tunnel to 
my CE, because my ISP doesn't support native IPv6.

My ISP started sending me RAs with no prefix in them, M=1, and responds to 
requests for IA_NA and IA_PD with "NoPrefixAvail".

My UBNT ER5 overwrites the static ::/0 route I have over the 6in4 tunnel 
and points default to the ISP router (breaking my connectivity). In the 
routing table, it says "proto RA" for that route. Changing distance on my 
static route doesn't help. I ended up having to firewall ICMP6 from my ISP 
towards the ER5 so it wouldn't even see the RAs, and I will continue doing 
this until my ISP deployment is done. Now I have a working soltion again.

My Omnia Turris (running OpenWrt variant) in the same environment (but 
without 6in4 tunnel), seems to consider these RAs and the lack of 
prefix/address as a reason to just ignore them. It doesnt install a 
default route (so I don't have a ::/0 route on it at all on it).

Do we want some text in the document on what to do with RAs of different 
types? What about if it gets an native RA when it has 6RD configured and 
working? Which should be preferred? If it now has multiple prefixes, 
should it announce all of them? Just one?

The current document just touches on what the device should announce and 
configure onto its LAN interfaces when certain things happen, it doesn't 
touch on how different situations should influence what routes to 
configure in itself, what things to prefer etc?

Should we have source routing requirements, as discussed in homenet? My 
situation wouldn't have been a problem if I had installed a source/address 
based ::/0 route towards my 6in4 tunnel that would have taken precedence 
over the non-SADR route learnt from the RA?

I know we don't want to make this document hugely more complicated, but 
where do we draw the line? Do we want to support transition from for 
instance 6RD to native in a not-too-disruptive-consumer-experience way?