From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:41 PM To: Fred Baker <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Group" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "Abhay Roy (akr)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [homenet] Egress Routing Discussion: Baker model
Extending the routing protocols will be a long and possibly hard road, and we feel that the group should at least consider the possibility of an approach with better time-to-market and lower barrier to implementation - especially since the alternatives being proposed are hierarchical DHCPv6 PD and NPT66. The risk is that we make the perfect the enemy of the good and we end up with NPT66, [CD] There's another alternative we've added to eRouter (see draft-grundemann-homenet-hipnet) - hierarchical DHCPv6 without NPT66. For multihoming, you can do source/dest routing at the CER(s), if necessary, not every router. No routing protocol required, and no v6 NAT.
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
