Nice migration to HOMENET. ;)
On 8/1/11 2:58 PM, "Ole Troan" <[email protected]> wrote: >[v6ops in bcc] > >> On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 10:38, Brzozowski, John >><[email protected]> wrote: >> The outer most router supports DHCPv6 PD (LAN side). It would have to >>be >> seeded with adequate address space to serve up IA_PD (and possibly >>IA_NA) >> for downstream routers. Based on conversations to date I assume there >> would be interest in downstream routers also support and being able to >> delegate prefixes? >> >> There are two issues I see with DHCPv6 PD to distribute prefixes inside >>the home: >> >> 1. Prefix delegation only really works in a tree topology, so when the >>user plugs things in wrong (e.g., plugs a LAN port into another LAN >>port, or creates a loop) it won't work. Having a routing protocol will >>allow things to work regardless of how the user plugs things in. > >prefix delegation with DHCP can be made to work in arbitrary topologies. [jjmb] agreed. > > >> 2. We already use PD between the home network and the ISP. If we use it >>inside the home as well, then a home router getting a prefix via DHCPv6 >>PD will not know whether it is connected to the ISP or not, and thus if >>it should turn on the firewall or not. > >PD (or not) as a mechanism to detect a network boundary is probably not >reliable or secure enough. > >> Both of these issues can be solved by using an IGP. > >3. DHCP PD does not handle the multi-home / multi-prefix case. an IGP >based solution would. [jjmb] can you elaborate on this? Why not? > >the requirement to have an IGP is somewhat orthogonal to the problem of >prefix assignment. the autonomous properties of a flooding mechanism as >opposed to a request/reply mechanism is the key in my opinion. > >cheers, >Ole > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
