> those with internet access are "desired" in the sense of > draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment (this is not standard normative > language). Maybe we should ask Pierre what the actual normative > translation to that is,
I'm happy with the current situation -- "desired" is precisely defined in the PA draft. I would simply suggest changing hncp to say "desired in the sense defined in Section whatever of [I.D.-whatever]". And put "desired" in Italics ;-) > consider this changed for -08, to all are desired by default. Oh, my. In that case, please clarify whether prefixes assigned from non-zero policy prefixes should be treated specially, by HNCP, by the routing protocol, or by RA/DHCP. (E.g. do I just serve such a prefix normally over DHCPv4? Do I tag it somehow in the routing protocol? Do I serve the associated DHCP options normally, say DNS servers?) Steven, I'd really be grateful for a usage scenario. > Also maybe this thing should be renamed to Prefix Policy TLV since this > seems more accurate. That's probably better, since it doesn't imply it's a DNS thing. >> 3. if a delegated prefix with non-zero domain is included within a prefix >> with zero domain, it still causes the (longer, smaller) prefix to be >> excluded from prefix assignment according to 6.2.1. > It is intended as: Delegated Prefixes included within other Delegated > Prefixes are ignored, as well as their nested options. Right, silly me. Excluded prefixes are encoded as Assigned Prefixes with Link Identifier zero and Priority 15 (Section 6.2.5). -- Juliusz _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
