RE: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review

["Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>]

 -----Original Message-----
From: Alain Durand [mailto:alain_durand@cable.comcast.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 6:08 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Cc: Mark Townsley (townsley); Jimmy Chuang (cchuang); Rémi Denis-Courmont; v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review

On 7/22/08 6:00 PM, "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> wrote:

> I see.  Thanks for sharing the experience.  But the TCP issue 
> mentioned in section 3.2 of RFC4943 says the host is in a router-less 
> network.  Host C in the example you gave sits in a routed network 
> because host C is behind the CPE Router.  Does that make any difference?
> 
> Anyhow, for your example since C and B sit in different home, their 
> ULA and GUA prefixes are off-link to each other, so why would host C 
> issue an address resolution?



>> The on-link/off-link is just an example to illustrate the larger problem that trying multiple addresses that will fail first can introduce long delays.

>>  - Alain.


Ah, OK, I understand you and also since I read the last para of section 3.2 of your draft.  To nip this problem in the bud, as I said before, let the host app fix its bug to first not send ULA in "address info" to another host and also if any host app receives a ULA and GUA, the app should ignore the ULA.

Hemant