Le 12/03/2018 à 00:58, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano a écrit :
[...]
However, I have difficulty to grasp the term 'distributed logical
interface'. It sounds as if the same interface name, e.g.
'mn1mar1', was present on both MAAR1 and MAAR2. In reality, only
the triplet 'MAC address', 'link-local address' and the 'global
prefix' are same on MAAR1 and MAAR2 interfaces. These latter are
called differently, though: 'mn1mar1' and 'mn1mar2'.
[Carlos] The triplet are the same, but we also use the same name of
the interface in the diagrams (in the system, the name of the
interface does not matter, could be called in anyway, the important
point is the triplet you mentioned). 'mn1mar1' refers to the logical
interface (i.e., triplet) exposed by MAAR1 to MN1 for the prefix
anchored by MAAR1 to MN1. 'mn1mar2' refers to the logical interface
(i.e., triplet) exposed by MAAR2 to MN1 for the prefix anchored by
MAAR2 to MN1. If the MN is using addresses from both the prefixes
anchored at MAAR1 and MAAR2, while the MN is attached to MAAR2,
'mn1mar1' and 'mn1mar2' logical interfaces will be configured at
MAAR2.
Maybe the DLIF could be named 'mn1marx'. But I dont think you
ifconfig 'mn1marx' whereas I am almost sure you do ifconfig mn1mar1
and ifconfig mn1mar2.
[Carlos] Please check the previous and let me know if you agree.
Yes, I checked and I agree as long as DLIF is a concept, not one interface.
[...]
Prefix Length
8-bit unsigned integer indicating the prefix length of the IPv6
prefix contained in the option.
This 'Prefix Length' variable appears several times in the message
formats, yet all the examples of prefixes shown in the draft are
of length precisely 64. I do not understand why.
In order to illustrate that is true variable, can we have one of
the examples that says '63' instead of '64'?
Otherwise, it may sound little logical to keep that as variable.
Just use /64s everywhere and dont transmit Prefix Length in no
message.
[Carlos] We include the Prefix Length option as in the HNP option of
RFC 5213 and the MNP option of RFC3963. But we foresee that this
value will be equal to 64 in most cases, as the prefix length in IPv6
is typically 64-bits. Do you think we should also have examples with
other prefix lengths?
I think other-than-64 prefix lengths should be feasible.
For RFC3963: the prefix length is variable in order to accommodate
mobile routers.
For RFC5213: why is there a variable prefix length if this value is
foreseen to be equal to 64 in most cases? What is the particular case
where that prefix length is not 64?
Alex
_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
