Hi Alex, On Mon, 2018-03-12 at 11:06 +0100, Alexandre Petrescu wrote: > > 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.
[Carlos] OK. > > [...] > > > > > 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? [Carlos] I think it was put there to be flexible and allow for other cases in the future. We can document in our draft that other prefix lengths are possible. Thanks, Carlos > > Alex _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list email@example.com https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm