Subject: Re: v6 question
To: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
From: None <>
List: tech-net
Date: 02/14/2000 12:58:33
>  | 	Also, accepting RA from the router itself (which was the topic we
>  | 	started this thread) is very strange,
>Yes, I agree, and I thought I made it clear in the first message
>that as things are now, attempting to autoconfig a router would not
>be intelligent.


>  | 	- the host has only single external interface
>That one I don't think is assumed.   Or I certainly don't recall
>it as intended.  Where do you see that assumption?  I know there
>is still work to be done on multi-homed hosts, but I didn't think
>any of that would affect the autoconf part.

	(1) RFC2461 appendix A is too vague to implement something workable,
	and (2) RFC2462 does not give any provision on how one should behave
	on multiple RAs from multiple interfaces, for example, routing
	table setups (default router list).

>Note I only sent my first message on this because it seemed to me that
>some people who saw your earlier message had read it as meaning that there
>was some IPv6 architectural design decision somewhere along the way that
>said "no IPv6 routers can ever be autoconfigured".  That isn't the case.
>On the other hand, we have currently no mechanisms at all to use to
>autoconfigure a router, so anyone who wants to try is either going to have
>to wait for someone to define the mechanisms - or define them themselves.

	Agreed, my words were too restrictive.  Sorry about that.  As seen in
	separate message, (1) there's no spec (2) kame code follows RFC2462
	for autoconfiguration, which talks only about autoconfiguring hosts
	(not routers).  I'll update manpages if there are any wording like this.