Hi Pierre,
Thanks for the draft update. Now I have two questions:
prefixes of size 64 are RECOMMENDED.
Why is this length recommended? I think it may be because of Ethernet?
Maybe it would be advantageous to not make any recommendation on the
prefix length. Some times this may develop into a barrier beyond which
it will be hard to go.
The other question is about the assumed capability to decide non between
prefixes, such as to detect collisions. Do you think it is possible to
decide equality between prefixes? I rather think prefixes have a more
refined relationship than just equal/not-equal - e.g. they are also
aggregated.
If Router1 advertises P1/64 and Router2 P2/65 aggregated in P1 do you
think a 'collision' could be detected? I doubt we have such an
algorithm somewhere.
Alex
Le 30/06/2014 17:18, Pierre Pfister a écrit :
Hello group,
I’d like to inform you about the changes made in the two last
homenet-prefix-assignment updates.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pfister-homenet-prefix-assignment-02
The changes are mostly about fixing typos, but a few technical changes have
been made as well (based on the experience gained from the implementation of
the Prefix Assignment Algorithm over HNCP).
— Changes between 00 and 01
- If a Delegated Prefix is included in another Delegated Prefix, it is ignored.
This is intended to improve support for non-homenet routers that provide prefix
sub-delegation. That way, sub-delegated prefixes are ignored.
- Adding network leader definition (The router with the highest identifier).
- Add a section about DHCPv6 downstream prefix delegation. For downstream
RFC7084 routers support.
- Adding Delegated Prefix deprecation procedure in order to differentiate
prefix deprecation and node disconnection. When a node disconnect, the DPs
advertised by this node may be kept some time (depending on the DP's
lifetimes). But if a DP is actively deprecated, nodes must stop using it
immediately.
— Changes between 01 and 02
- Designated router election can make use of the information provided by the
flooding protocol (i.e. when no router is designated yet, only the highest
router id present on the link can become designated).
- New implementation guideline in appendix concerning "prefix waste avoidance".
It proposes an algorithm that provides a good trade-of between randomness,
pseudo-randomness and prefix selection efficiency.
Comments are welcome,
Pierre Pfister
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
