Teco, [...]
>> I don't think the homenet should get into the "policy" part of this, but >> rather just provide some simple tools/infrastructure. > > Hmm. > I also prefer simple tools/infrastructure. But let's try to solve some > problems, or at least we shall not block solving later on. are the problems clearly understood at this point? written down? >>> 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. >> >> I've always seen SADR as a network function. hosts would do RFC6724. > > SADR on hosts is used quite often, where redundant links are in place. that's not SADR. SADR is about _forwarding_ of packets. [...] > Back to the draft-ietf-homenet-arch WGLC: this provisioning domain topic is > not addresses very well. Question is if we will address it, hand it over to > mif, or cooperate where we focus on the (plug&play) network part and mif > takes the hosts. I think we have a fair idea of how to deal with the home network being multi-homed. i.e. two or more connections to the Internet. we also have a decent idea of how to deal with multi-homing to non-congruent networks, see draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat-05 I'm not quite sure what problem "multiple provisioning domains" is trying to solve outwith that. cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
