RE: Another requirement [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review]

[Francois-Xavier Le Bail <fx.lebail@yahoo.com>]

--- On Thu, 7/31/08, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) <wbeebee@cisco.com> wrote:
> Agreed.  Perhaps a low precedence route (when all else but
> the default
> route fails to match) that's a null route would be
> desirable..

Yes, and with the Good Old "Longest prefix match", no problem of 
precedence.

Francois-Xavier

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francois-Xavier Le Bail [mailto:fx.lebail@yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 11:12 AM
> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
> Subject: RE: Another requirement [Re: New (-02) version of
> IPv6 CPE
> Router draft is available for review]
> 
> --- On Thu, 7/31/08, Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
> <wbeebee@cisco.com> wrote:
> > The route should go to the LAN ports (for the delegate
> prefix).  If 
> > the LAN ports happen to not be up, doesn't this
> cause the packet to be
> 
> > > dropped?  If the destination matches a loopback,
> then the packets 
> > can be serviced by the loopback.  If there is no LAN
> port (# of LAN 
> > ports = 0), and if the device still does DHCPv6 PD
> (for other 
> > addresses), then a null route may be appropriate as
> long as the other 
> > addresses get serviced at a higher priority.
> 
> For example, if the delegated prefix is a /56 and the CPE
> use a /64
> prefix for a subnet on a LAN Bridge and another /64 for a
> subnet on
> another LAN interface outside the bridge, there are many
> prefix/subnet
> not used.
> 
> Packet to theses unused prefix/subnet will loop without a
> discard or
> unreachable route.
> 
> Francois-Xavier
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On
> > Behalf Of Francois-Xavier Le Bail
> > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:17 AM
> > To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Another requirement [Re: New (-02) version of
> IPv6 CPE Router
> 
> > draft is available for review]
> > 
> > Another requirement:
> > 
> > The CPE should install a discard (null) or unreachable
> route for the 
> > delegated prefix.
> > 
> > Without, a packet to an unused subnet (belonging to
> the delegated
> > prefix) will loop between the CPE (default route to
> the Edge Router) 
> > and the Edge Router (route for the delegated prefix to
> the CPE).
> > 
> > The only difference between the two options is: with
> unreachable route
> 
> > the CPE return ICMPv6 "Destination Unreachable/no
> route to 
> > destination"
> > message to the source address instead of only silently
> discard the 
> > packet.
> > 
> > Francois-Xavier