Pascal, we (as in homenet) do not want to require host changes. I also think the issues with flooding ND has been explored in RFC4903.
cheers, Ole On Oct 10, 2011, at 9:33 , Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
