On 31/01/2014 00:35, Ole Troan wrote:
> Alex,
>
>>>> 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.
>>> to clarify what I meant:
>>> tight coupling --- integrated in a routing protocol, e.g. in
>>> draft-arkko-homenet-prefix-assignment
>>> loosely coupled --- separate (new) protocol
>> Could it be separate (existing) protocol?
>
> if one had existed, sure.
> requirements from homenet-arch (I might have missed some):
> - must support multi-homing
> - each link should be assigned a stable prefix
> - efficient allocation of prefixes
> - should support both IPv4 and IPv6
I think you need to add
- must allow source-address-based next hop routing
- must support multiple prefixes per subnet
- must guarantee consistency with routing
(The last one doesn't mean "must be provided by routing protocol",
but it does mean that whatever box generates the PD message
MUST be configured with the same information as the routers.)
And also
- must be zero-conf as far as the end user is concerned
I actually don't see how to separate this discussion (PD)
from the discussion about how to announce multiple
first-hop (a.k.a. default) routers.
I also don't see how to separate it from the discussion
of autonomic networking that is starting in NMRG, because
of the zero-conf requirement.
Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
