Hi Erik,
On Mar 23, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Erik Nordmark wrote:
On 03/22/10 10:45 AM, Mathilde Durvy (mdurvy) wrote:
Hi Erik, Samita,
Thanks for your draft. This proposal is much closer to what I had
in mind
myself and I feel this is a great step forward!
I have a few questions / comments:
- Assumptions: why do you assume that 6LR use RA to configure their
global
addresses while host are allowed to use DHCPv6? In IPv6, routers are
typically ignoring received RAs... It is not very clear whether your
proposal allows the case where all addresses (host and 6LR) are
assigned
using DHCPv6. It might also be that in a route-over situation the
routing
protocol itself would take care of distributing well chosen
prefixes/addresses to allow prefix aggregation in routing tables or
routing
messages.
We just borrowed this from draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-08.
As I said during the presentation yesterday, I think the key thing
to standardize around ND is the host-router interaction. This router-
border interaction is, as you point out, something that can be done
in different ways.
I think it makes sense to provide an optional way to perform the
router-border interaction as part of the ND work, while making it
clear that there are other ways to do those pieces such as the
routing protocol.
But I don't think DHCPv6 can be used to assign the same prefix to
all the routers in the 6lowpan (DHCP prefix delegation would give
them all different prefixes which is not what we want.)
I think Mathilde was referring to using DHCPv6 to assign only IPv6
addresses (not prefixes) and that the only router-border interaction
is through the use of DHCPv6 relay agents. I agree that DHCPv6 prefix
delegation in 6LoWPAN networks doesn't make much sense in most
situations.
--
Jonathan Hui
_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan
