Ted, On 18/10/2014 11:37, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 17, 2014, at 5:16 PM, James Woodyatt <[email protected]> wrote: >> p1. It looks like you agree that locally generate ULA prefixes should be >> allowed to expire. What I don't see is any conceptual outline for deciding, >> in a distributed methodology, which prefixes to renew and which to release >> when their valid lifetime expires. Without seeing that, I can't agree that >> you've proposed anything that solves the problem I keep yammering about, >> much less offered a better solution than the one I proposed earlier in the >> thread. > > Please don't put words in my mouth. > > I did explain how to do that: before the network partitions,
That seems to imply that you know in advance that the network will partition. I assume that it will usually be a surprise. Normally there is no human manager, although a human might randomly disconnect cables or switch off a power socket. So I think you mean: as soon as the network has generated its ULA... > divide the ULA into 64k /64 prefixes, and distribute these evenly among > attached routers. ...but that will break when another router attaches itself later, unless the (re)distribution process is continuous. > Routers other than the ones that own a particular /64 are not allowed ever > to use that /64 unless the router that owns it relinquishes it to them > explicitly. Sure, and this needs to be supported by HNCP (or something else). > Prior to partition, an agreement is made that one of the routers gets to > keep the ULA in the event of a long-term partition. Again: that has to happen as soon as the ULA is generated, since partition is unpredictable. Brian _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
