Hi,
I am also interested in this direction.
Thanks for the diagram, it illustrates well.
'Tightly couple routing protocol and prefix assignment, as well as
distribution of other configuration information'? (yes/no)
Yes.
But,
In my understanding, there is a need to couple the prefix assignment to
the routing protocol. Although I am not sure how much tight, or what
tight and loose might mean.
For example, would coupling the DHCP-PD assignment operations triggering
routing protocol updates mean tight or loose coupling. Or would this be
a 100% alternative to a routing protocol-only prefix assignment solution?
I am asking because I author an inidividual draft
draft-petrescu-relay-route-pd-problem-00.txt
"Route Problem at Relay during DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation" in this space.
Alex
Le 30/01/2014 11:48, Ole Troan a écrit :
All,
Updating the ospf prefix-assingment draft has been on my todo list for a
long time.
Before doing so I wanted to ask the working group if there was any clear
direction evolving.
Any views on the decisions in the flow chart attached? Anything I missed?
To summarize:
We need to decide, if we want prefix assignment and distribution of
other configuration information integrated in a routing protocol.
Depending on that decision we either need to design a separate protocol
to do that, or we need to add support for that in a routing protocol.
Prefix assignment is simpler with a link-state protocol, so that's why I
have limited the choice of routing protocols for that branch. I have
assumed there is agreement to have a single routing protocol in the
home, and not support multiple.
cheers,
Ole
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
