> And what happens when the routing protocol finds out that, even though the > delegation protocol thinks everything is OK and addresses were delegated just > fine, the network is now partitioned? How do you reassign addresses in that > case?
I fail to see how this particular functionality requires merging the two protocols. If a link is partitioned, you need to time-out the address assignments made by the now unreachable router. Whether they are timed out by the routing protocol or by a separate configuration protocol is pretty much an implementation detail, isn't it? > How do you tell the prefix assignment protocol that it needs to resolve > addressing conflicts when you merge two networks that have the same prefixes? > You have to tightly couple prefix assignment and routing again. If I were to implement this, I'd probably listen for changes to the kernel's routing table and defend my address whenever in doubt. (Being the paranoid type, I'd also flood periodic defense packets every few minutes, just in case.) > In which case it's just better to have the same protocol There are other disadvantages to having a single protocol. It's a tradeoff, as usual. -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
