Ole, Still I am puzzled how we can support multiple provisioning domains with multi-addressed hosts in a homenet. May I reference to the discussion in mif? http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-mif-1.pdf
For providing information on provisioning domains, we might look into DHCP _and_ ND. I think both can and should be supported. I think one of the problems is how to merge or multiplex information from/for these provisioning domains. Has DHCP a kind of ProvisioningDomain_ID on each (serf of) data element(s)? On SAS/DAS policy, how to create such automatically in network elements? If we can't on the fly, it might be irrelevant for homenet. I agree SADR is a major part of the right solution. Source address indicates the provision domain, at least for IPv6. Hosts need to be updated and mif should take the lead here. But mif only can take the job if the network supports multiple provisioning domains well, e.g. SADR. Updated hosts need SADR as well. And of course the legacy stuff is out there. Re-reading sections on multihoming (3.2.4, also 3.4.4), there is enough room for solution space. I would expect some more guidelines form an architecture, but now there are no constrains on what we may work out. That's fine. May I suggest to add MPTCP (RFC 6824) at bottom of 3.2.4? Teco Op 4 mrt. 2013, om 13:04 heeft Ole Troan <[email protected]> het volgende geschreven: > Teco, > >>>> Reading the homenet-arch, I can't find how multi-addressed hosts are >>>> guided to prefer one address over another. I think such facility is >>>> beneficial in multi-homed homenets. >>> >>> the intention is to propagate the SAS/DAS policy given with >>> draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt, >>> and more specific routes learn on the border, combined with source address >>> dependent forwarding. >>> as well as rule 5.5 of 6724. >> This will work when every access router is a DHCP server, right? What if no >> DHCP or DHCP-relay? Do we generate this option out of routing information? >> Or some other zero-config magic? > > I don't think there is any intention of creating SAS/DAS policy on the fly. I > was only thinking of passing that along to hosts. > the homenet will using SADR ensure that BCP38 rules are satisfied. nothing > more. > > I'm not sure what you mean by the DHCP question. DHCP has an option to pass > SAS/DAS policy to hosts. I'm not suggesting DHCP is used to propagate that > information around between routers in the home net. > >>> that's in solution space though. there is already a reference to the >>> multihoming-without-ipv6nat document. >>> >>> do you have ideas of anything else we should add to the architecture >>> document? >> Maybe it is my reservations on the current suggested solutions. I don't >> understand why we don't make use of ND. Then, access routers can provide >> whatever they wish, from whatever source and the host can ignore or take >> some benefits. > > again I don't quite understand what you mean. which protocol is used to > convey network information to the hosts doesn't much matter in my view... > > cheers, > Ole _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
