On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Ole Trøan wrote:
In my mind, I was looking at a new mechanism that the ISP routers used
to tell each other what prefix they were advertising and handing out.
the kind of do with
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-homenet-prefix-assignment-03
but you can't a) expect the ISP routers to be able to discover each other
(might not be on the same link), b) operated by the same entity.
b) I never imagined, a) would be nice if that could be solved. I don't see
any text in that draft regarding source based routing though.
I couldn't find specifics on "DHCP option for SAS/DAS policy", so I don't know what
that means exactly. Could you give a pointer? If I read
<https://github.com/otroan/IETF-CPE-router/wiki> my guess is that it is more for the
homenet router when they get DHCPv6-PD, but I might be mistaken?
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt/
this is more for multi-homing to non-congruent networks.
But relying on RFC6724 rule 5.5 for all hosts seems unfeasable. I'd rather
solve getting the correct traffic to the correct ISP router on the ISP router
level, not in the hosts. So no ICMP redirects, just source based routing
between the ISP routers.
we're not, the RFC6724 rule only applies when a host is connected to two
routers with different upstream connectivity.
inside the home, i.e the host is behind two internal home routers, SADR is used
to get to the correct border.
What happens if the host doesn't support 5.5?
the only thing we're asking for here is that the hosts also do a
simplified form for SADR when directly connected to multiple border
routers.
So, I still can't find anything about a mechanism for routers in homenet
for network-wide discovery of where a certain src address packet should be
sent when it's destined for the default route (to the Internet).
Why can't OSPF be used (needs new functionality) so that all homenet
routers learn a default-route per prefix, and thus have multiple default
routes, and select which one to use depending on what the src address is
of the packet? That would relieve the hosts of having to do anything at
all (it is nice if they can do 5.5, but things wouldn't break without it).
Basically "multi-topology" but instead of being one for IPv4 and one for
IPv6, we now have one topology per ISP allocated prefix.
Or am I missing things again?
I would really like to avoid requiring functionality in the hosts as I see
this as a big obstacle to get homenet implemented in real life.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
