Op 7 nov. 2012, om 16:59 heeft Ole Trøan het volgende geschreven:

> Ted,
> 
> this has been proposed a few times. the problems that I see with it are:
> - in an arbitrary topology how do you decide which interfaces you are a 
> client on and which interfaces you relay on
> - how do you handle the case where multiple routers try to assign a prefix to 
> a link
> - how do you discover the DHCPv6 servers
> - how do you handle the case with multiple sources of information 
> (multi-homing)
> 
> the OSPF based prefix assignment handle all of these, "out of the starting 
> blocks".
It has little to do with OSPF. It is about the flooded TLV with info on border 
routers. BRDP does exactly the same here. 

Teco

> 
> cheers,
> Ole
> 
>> I don't have a particular preference for DHCP-PD over OSPF in homenets, but 
>> I just wanted to quickly contradict what's been said by several people at 
>> the mic: that figuring out what prefix to delegate is hard.   It's not hard, 
>> actually—it's dead easy.   The reason folks think it's hard is because 
>> they're solving the wrong problem.
>> 
>> The problem that needs to be solved is how we number each home subnet.   The 
>> answer to this question is, "with a /64."   There is no other answer.   You 
>> never want to number a subnet with a /52.   Therefore, the delegating router 
>> should never delegate anything but a /64.   Problem solved.
>> 
>> I think the disconnect here is that people are thinking the routers to which 
>> prefixes are delegated need to themselves be delegating routers, but this is 
>> incorrect.   What they need to do is _relay_ prefix delegation requests to 
>> the delegating router from which they got their own delegation.
>> 
>> This scales to multi-homing with multiple delegating routers—you just relay 
>> every PD request upstream to all delegating routers.
>> 
>> I'd be happy to write a draft that describes how this works if someone 
>> actually wants it; I get the sense that people are pretty in love with the 
>> OSPF solution and would prefer not to be distracted, and I have no argument 
>> with that if that's the working group consensus.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Reply via email to