Re: [v6ops] Operational Headache: Upstream liveness

> 
> Why is NUD not sufficient to address the problem (WAN neighbor unreachable)? 
> 
> I hope that the HGW devices are  compliant with RFC4861 / 7048. 

With the typical deployment of a DHCPv6 PD snooping relay (for the purpose of route injection) it is helpful having a mechanism that also verifies the forwarding state of the first-hop router (PE). 

Cheers,
Ole

> 
> Cheers,
> Rajiv  
> 
>> On Mar 29, 2019, at 6:44 AM, Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-104-v6ops-deutsche-telekom-terastream/, slide 9
>> 
>> What do we want to say on this issue? Mikael mentions draft-patterson-intarea-ipoe-health as possibly relevant, but I also get the idea that there is more to say; in this case, I think I need to send a note to the relevant authors and chairs asking them what the prognosis is and expressing operational interest. First, is there a consensus to do that? Second, do we have additional comments to pass along? Our comments might be adequately summarized by forwarding a link to this thread, or might rise to the level that needs to be discussed in an internet draft in v6ops. Comments?
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Victorious warriors win first and then go to war,
>> Defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
>>    Sun Tzu
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops