On 10/7/11 11:39 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 14:25, Erik Nordmark <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:The slides say: "Support arbitrary topologies including loops" What is the implication of that on IPv4? Are you assuming that the dual-stack home network will delegate IPv4 prefixes and route IPv4, with no internal NATs? How would someone transition to such an IPv4 network from their current daisy-chain or tree of IPv4 NATs? IPv4 won't work. You would likely never get to such a topology (or never stay there) if you need IPv4, since you would notice it's not working and unplug it. :-) However, it would be nice if IPv6 were able to work in this situation as well, so if you don't need IPv6, you can plug things in any random way and have things work. Supporting arbitrary topologies and loops is not an absolute requirement (especially loops, since loops will break IPv4), but it would be nice to work in multiple topologies, and you have a routing protocol anyway then being able to support loops comes for free.
Unfortunately I missed Fred's discussion yesterday (hopefully there will be a recording) but the above seems backwards.
Today there are IPv4 NATting RGs, and there are cases when you end up with multiple (could be tied to separate services or other functionality) in a home. Seems like we'd like to be able to introduce IPv6 support without NATs into such a home network without breaking IPv4.
You seem to focus on a clean slate approach.
To achieve stability, routers would need to write the prefixes they form into stable storage (like they would a DHCP lease).
That can be used to get a stable prefix per interface on the router, which I observe isn't the same as getting one (or a set of) stable prefixes assigned to the link to which that interface is attached.
I think it's reasonable to write to stable storage whenever you configure a new prefix or change an existing prefix (but not if you simply refresh it). If the router comes back up and nobody has the prefix, it would simply claim it back. If someone else has it, it would have to just form a new one using loop detection.
In your view, if there is a single prefix assigned to the home by the ISP, and there are three routers connected to a particular link in the home, would each of those three routers assign a different prefix to the link?
Am I missing something? Erik _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
