Hello Juliusz,
No, as it is specified for now, a router cannot assign an address on an
end-point
unless that en-point is in a ‘Common Link’ which includes the end-point
identifier.
"An assigned address MUST be in the first quarter of an assigned
prefix currently applied on a Common Link which includes the
interface specified by the endpoint identifier."
The address assignment process does not require this limitation though. I guess
we could consider removing that.
But if what you are trying to do is assign sparse /128 to different links or
loopbacks, there exists a perfectly valid way to do so.
A router can assign a /128 prefix for private use (just like it would do a PD,
i.e., by advertising an ASSIGNED-PREFIX TLV with an End-Point ID equal to 0,
or even another End-Point ID that is not used by any real interfaces), and use
the address (And advertise it through the RP,
just like it would do with any other assigned prefix).
- Pierre
> Le 28 juin 2015 à 16:22, Juliusz Chroboczek <[email protected]>
> a écrit :
>
> Concerning the /128-on-loopback issue...
>
> The HNCP draft is not quite clear about the semantics of the NODE-ADDRESS TLV
> (Section 6.3 of -06). Is that for on-link addresses only?
>
> In other words, is it legal for a router to grab an address from a prefix
> assigned by some other router (not necessarily a neighbour), advertise it
> over NODE-ADDRESS, assign it to one if its interfaces, and advertise the /128
> over Babel?
>
> If it's legal and doesn't cause any issues I don't see, then that pretty much
> solves this particular problem.
>
> -- Juliusz
>
> _______________________________________________
> homenet mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
