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
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

Reply via email to