Re: [v6ops] M/O flags and PD

[Gert Doering <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 09:55:38AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Gert Doering <[e-mail]>
> 
> > Yes, but that is the point - "typical routers" do not need to
> > *listen* to RAs, because that's not required for their job.  They
> > will speak a routing protocol, and not default-route, etc.
> 
> Who is listening for RAs or not seems to me to be besides the point. It
> boils down to this: If you are about to originate an RA to a link, and
> know that there is information available in DHCPv6 on said link, you
> should set set the M or O flag. Otherwise you're supplying false
> information by indicating that there is no information available in
> DHCPv6.

No, the point I was trying to made is: conceptually, DHCPv6 PD is happening
outside RA.  RA is "information to hosts", PD is "done by routers".

But I already agreed that this is not written down anywhere, but my
interpretation on how this can all make sense.

[..]
> > As I said, boundaries between "hosts" and "router" are less than clear
> > today - but this is my interpretation on how these have come into place.
> 
> Indeed. Thus I believe claims like «hosts don't request prefixes» or
> «routers don't process RAs» can't be considered true (unless a node can
> be both simultaneously).

We had this discussion in the context of the CPE spec - a CPE is a 
router (obviously), but for acquiring its management IPv6 address and
for being talked to on the management address, it's very obviously a
host as well.  So of course a node can be both.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: [phone]           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279