On 01/11/2014 04:47, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Oct 31, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Sheng Jiang <jiangsh...@huawei.com> wrote: >> The current general mechanism are too general to work for the use case of >> hierarchical prefix delegation. But if we add hierarchical topology and no >> bypass requests as constraint conditions, we may be able to make >> hierarchical prefix delegation work. > > No, that is not the point I am making. The point I am making is that > hierarchical delegation simply won't work, no matter what mechanism you put > in place to do it, because the network has to be able to grow incrementally. > With that as a base assumption, you cannot predict where the network will > grow, so you don't know how to construct the hierarchy. Once the hierarchy > is constructed, you would have to renumber on a regular basis to make > hierarchical delegation work. I think it is preferable to simply allow for > a complete routing table, and then try as best as possible to make routing > hierarchical, without demanding perfection.
Well yes. That's exactly why in autonomic management of prefixes, we need peer to peer negotiation, as in "I need 3 /64s that I don't have, do you have any spare ones for me?" Maybe it's badly explained but that is the whole point of our use case. Brian _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
