On 10/8/11 6:13 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
I like this, with the possible exception of using ULAs and your desire
to deprecate prefixes as soon as connectivity goes down. (Speaking as
someone whose prefixes got invalidated two months ago but who hasn't
been home long enough to fix the problem, but my devices still happily
communicate with each other using the old prefixes :-) I also agree with
Erik that loop and arbitrary topologies is not really required. But the
people in the interim at least seemed to say yesterday that we want to
go there.
I think there are different scopes being discussed.
The one I put forth is how to enable existing IPv4 NATting consumer home
routers (which all have a designated uplink port, and support multiple
home routers by nested NATting) have a way to support IPv6 without
requiring any IPv6 NATs. That doesn't seem to be a difficult problem
(which perhaps makes it uninteresting for some of us), but to me it
seems like an important short-term problem to solve.
The larger scope is around arbitrary topologies, no designated uplink
port, and perhaps also multihoming. Plenty of problems to solve around
autoconfiguring routing protocols, stable prefix assignment to links,
multihoming, etc.
Some things are common across the two; security (determining the
boundary of the home), DNS, and service discovery.
Erik
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
