Hi Ole: I think you're getting closer and closer to the models that were discussed in RPL, 6LoWPAN and Autoconf.
There are several components to the solution that was proposed there: - capability to register an IPv6 address using ND extensions - capability to extend a subnet over multiple hops (RPL DIO prefix option) - capability to redistribute ND registration into the MLSN routing protocol - capability to use the ND registrar (and/or) the routing protocol for DAD - capability for the registrar to proxy ND over a backbone in order to interact with classical ND clients See: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6lowpan-backbone-router cheers, Pascal -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ole Troan Sent: lundi 10 octobre 2011 00:38 To: Erik Nordmark (nordmark) Cc: [email protected] Subject: [homenet] Multilink subnet routing (MLSRv2) Erik, et al, to expand on the ideas I presented on MLSR (or rather MLSRv2 as it hasn't really been described anywhere) as a method for numbering a routed home. please let me be clear that I'm not convinced this is a good idea. i.e. why not just get < /64? I do think we could get something working though. routers can be in an arbitrary topology. all routers running a routing protocol. the site prefix (/64) is either advertised in the IGP with a new LSA or proxying of RA messages is done (split horizon). a router advertises the same /64 prefix (in a PIO) on all of its interfaces. L bit is 0. the link model here is that all hosts are off link from each other. link-local scope is restricted to only the physical link. multicast link-local scope as well. a host uses SLAAC (or DHCP) to create an address, then does DAD as normal. the first hop router uses it's routing topology database to check for conflicts. similar mechanisms described in SAVI are used to glean address information from the host. the SAVI binding database is then used to inject host routes into the IGP. this requires no flooding of ND, or any other changes to on-link protocols for loop detection. no changes in hosts either. only downside is that it requires a host to have sent a packet of some form for the SAVI binding to be initiated. it might also be possible to support host mobility with the home with this mechanism. cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
