Mat,
That looks good to me, I hope the architecture authors will pick it up.
Brian
On 08/11/2012 16:15, Mattia Rossi wrote:
>>>> I don't think bridging should be considered for homenet. Don't forget
>>>> the following in the charter:
>>>>
>>>> "Also, link layer networking technology is poised to become more
>>>> heterogeneous, as networks begin to employ both traditional Ethernet
>>>> technology and link layers designed for low-powered sensor networks."
>>>>
>>>> In a lot of these conversations, the "lightswitch guys" (as someone
>>>> called the LLN proponents) seem to get forgotten.
>>>>
>>> So what happens if the "lightswitch guys" want to plug-in a router,
>>> which they have to, as they can't bridge, but there's only one exit
>>> router from one ISP which is managed and gets a /64 only?
>>> SLAAC relay? I think in this case a /64 is simply not acceptable.
>> OK, so there are failure cases and that too needs to be stated in the
>> architecture. Send text.
>>
> So your text:
>
> The home network needs to be adaptable to such ISP policies, and thus
> make no assumptions about the stability of the prefix received from
> an ISP, or the length of the prefix that may be offered. However, if
> only a /64 is offered by the ISP, the homenet may be severely
> constrained. Attempting to use subnet prefixes longer than /64
> would break SLAAC, and is thus not recommended. Using ULA prefixes
> internally with NPTv6 at the boundary would be possible, but is not
> recommended for reasons given elsewhere. The least damaging solution
> would be for the internal routers to revert to bridging mode,
> even though this would destroy the benefits of subnetting.
>
> might become:
>
> The home network needs to be adaptable to such ISP policies, and thus
> make no assumptions about the stability of the prefix received from
> an ISP, or the length of the prefix that may be offered. However, if
> only a /64 is offered by the ISP, the homenet may be severely
> constrained. Attempting to use subnet prefixes longer than /64
> would break SLAAC, and is thus not recommended. Using ULA prefixes
> internally with NPTv6 at the boundary would be possible, but is not
> recommended for reasons given elsewhere. The least damaging solution
> would be for the internal routers to revert to bridging mode,
> even though this would destroy the benefits of subnetting.
> There are cases where neither bridging mode nor NPTv6, nor DHCPv6
> are feasible, e.g. if there are LLN subnets within the homenet
> which require remote access. In such cases a /64 assignment from
> an ISP will break the home network, and should therefore be avoided.
>
>
> Feel free to rewrite it.
>
> Mat
>
>
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
