On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:52 AM 11/15/11, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: >> The mic line was too long to bring this up: >> You suggest using RFC 3633. How about RFC 2894 (Router renumbering) too? >> Typo: the draft actually cites RFC 3363, which is not what you intended... > > Ditto on the mic line—very frustrating. I think you overestimate the > obstacles to using DHCPv6 PD for this application. I don't think any > protocol extension is required. What is needed is ad-hoc relay > configuration, which is already anticipated. The CPE device can just > allocate a /64 for any PD it receives, and with ad-hoc relaying, it should > all Just Work.
Yup. No protocol extensions needed to DHCPv6. Needs some careful thinking about how to use RAs as the trigger for deciding when a prefix is needed. > The way ad hoc relaying works is that when you come up, your PD client asks > for a prefix on its upstream port. If it receives PDs, it relays them on > its upstream port. These PDs all wind up at the CPE device, which allocates > /64s to them and forwards them back, all in accordance with the existing DHCP > relay mechanism. > > I think homenet would have to do a draft describing how to set this up, but > it does not require a DHCP extension. There'd be some details to document > on how the routing topology gets set up; perhaps that could be done with OSPF. Also might need a little thinking about how to accommodate multi-homed networks; e.g., allow the requesting router to take a prefix from each of the delegating routers it hears from (as opposed to the address assignment strategy of choosing one DHCP server to interact with). - Ralph > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
