On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Margaret Cullen <mrculle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:58 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> The former is obvious but I'm not sure that any case has been made to require >> MPVDs in the basic Homenet model. There are no references to the MIF WG or >> its >> documents in the Homenet architecture RFC. > > Since MPVDs are implemented on hosts, and informed by information distributed > in RAs and/or via DHCP, Homenet should already support MPVDs to some extent. > There are some issues with how Homenet would distribute the MPVD DHCP > options, most of which would apply to other container options, and we have a > group of people looking into that now. Assuming we can resolve those issues > to everyone's satisfaction, Homenet will support MPVDs with no additional > complexity in the Homenet protocols.
I think the reason why this "MIF support" thread started was that different gateways might be good or bad (because of the topology/links in between) for one router or the other one. The question is how to push this local information to the attached Hosts. Transporting DHCP options over HNCP has nothing to do with it, because it will be a local decision anyways, not one decided by the gateway. Henning Rogge _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
