IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 - absence of req of prefix presence in PIO on LAN?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 14 November 2019 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9048D120108 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 10:16:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 CU8N8vnq2RTL for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 10:16:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52e.google.com (mail-pg1-x52e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F4C6120100 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 10:16:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id f19so4275764pgk.11 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 10:16:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=W6+L5p6sCuKeS4wTRKbMp3VLzZmRFURJ02R0/kMy1VU=; b=ECIFzUNp2CivohgS1YsYivjQehJ6adtESjwLy1XljwqRGCgWeGg/ifaqvLmHg7JExM A/dq/HjXULrnaHatTN/6rHUk0eFR5j8e3T8CM45HnYou0ByDqc5vE4NZnKFAdONJgrzu Tu0VpQxB3hOq2Y5ygmk++vT4mp1Hpktah56bUG/lYgliYKixSwSl6UgmiCKwUyNgCLE6 JZGtqKY66NHewSQEmhd9M3rToXIWySY32RKTP+R/ZFbVkWNP01mqCxyuoPJ+lLXlPuoe T3xq58kN6VcGBJp/GOt/t5m9tEFgn/R1z7MQ9KKczi7qTv4gVqc3jnLLmt9eKLIy69Qr /DMw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=W6+L5p6sCuKeS4wTRKbMp3VLzZmRFURJ02R0/kMy1VU=; b=cmCk1pH5/mzcWJk7OvjecE5yAsMTPdsjKBFfCJINKgUfu5zSt6WAe3enydmW4dXw9x DZYR0QxOJRiQumb6JQmI1Xgm/XrQJ9yEzmcoVtYVnuXGhV6qLRlSUud0kgbWvAapAxBV kMT3d88YP2lbaB7er7NqDZimTnHnVmc53beOqeIIYYgKiZ4aX9R0ZqCw6HpBFkDjmPNg Qfu9FOWEhCDxJ39D9lWAWbqYb1KycaX5/AP3M970h1wi7+tuOJMHLAzHWQGTZgvNndy5 JBRORjH8qI3btN7FXENXZRAHFzYOOg8XMkzwSKdGylEbGQO6HrpT8evVWBBea3K2N58p 7P5g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXlQQuUhQ/lwyOysKIHxvB81Jv7CKcjeFxDZCOLheULv5/gsP4L Pj+6b7i9UapGLgDae8lX9wQVvKjc
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzItWh3Nz7IHsH63PdHBDjbD3a9IZftWM+HINMbY6TaB8kzOGfUWsEmoRZsJbLnZ2DjD0szRQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:86c3:: with SMTP id y3mr14251558pjv.102.1573755409419; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 10:16:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.21] (8.166.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.166.8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z10sm7077740pgg.39.2019.11.14.10.16.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 14 Nov 2019 10:16:48 -0800 (PST)
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <c4791cdd-6021-de83-6863-4d77ef1d1694@gmail.com> <CAOSSMjWu7C9jmG+8Yg7V++3GWzG+BSzFu0o0nHHYJY60P2T2oA@mail.gmail.com> <835b8b49-b00a-6fe3-1f47-7db7d5a76b92@gmail.com> <3e0779de-b740-a9e6-02ce-e18d43795f5c@gmail.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4568b864-ceff-f2d5-6941-638dd9d10027@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 07:16:45 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3e0779de-b740-a9e6-02ce-e18d43795f5c@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/kH053olTmNTlUq4bBnQSUepvsG8>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC7084 - absence of req of prefix presence in PIO on LAN?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 18:16:53 -0000

On 15-Nov-19 01:49, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
...
> I think RFC8028 sounds in context: "First-Hop Router Selection in a
> Multi-Prefix Network".
> 
> However, I am not sure where RFC8028 would apply: is it between the CE
> Router and the two ISPs?  Or is it between in-house Host and the single
> CE Router?

It is only useful in the case of *more than one* CE Router. As far as
I know, that is not illegal.

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email