Re: how to explain RFC 3315 sec 17.2.2 (together with CPE router requirements) ?

[Ole Troan <ot@cisco.com>]

>>> WPD-7 seems to exist specifically to handle this situation ?
>> 
>> correct.
>> 
>>> Any opnions on who is right here ? Do I need to file a bug with Juniper or is our CPE vendor wrong ? (They already implemented a fix and are now accepting this, so it's just to assure they are still RFC compliant). 
>> 
>> and you include the NoAddrsAvail status code?
> 
> Nope, but they now accept the fact the IA_NA remains unanswered and they stick with the IA_PD only (and 'unnumbered')
> 
>> I didn't quite get from your message what the two positions are?
>> 
> 
> Our position is we are compliant to both 3315 and the draft. Their position is we aren't, so by implementing the fix they broke the RFC which could lead to problems with other customers who use their modem.

3315 seems quite clear that you should include the IA with a NoAddrsAvail code. I'm not quite sure what the client behaviour is if it doesn't get the NoAddrsAvail option. in either case with 3633 support it has to be able to handle getting prefixes without addresses.

cheers,
Ole