On 16/08/2015 21:31, Steven Barth wrote:
> Am 10.08.2015 um 19:28 schrieb Fred Baker (fred):
>> In any event, I would urge the HNCP design team to consider the cases, and
>> either make an argument that making network routing more complex (BCP 84)
>> has a benefit I'm missing and actually works without the rule, or change
>> HNCP to not have each RA contain every possible prefix.
>
> After scanning the discussions here, is there anything in particular that
> people feel which we need to add or clarify in HNCP for that matter?
>
> It seems to me that the current behavior, i.e., potentially "non-optimal"
> router sending out the PIO
> and then relying on redirection / routing does not really break things.
I think Pierre was saying in Prague that it does break things in the case
of extra hops on very lossy wireless networks.
> Optimizing the PIO sending might in theory be
> possible but - as pointed out - is probably very hard to accomplish in
> practice.
>
> In addition, as a personal note from my own reading, I'm not 100% convinced
> that hosts even following the next-hop
> tracking of 6724 would correctly react to potential "handover" of a PIO from
> one router to another since the definition
> is relatively vague.
That is probably true today but hopefully doesn't have to stay true
for the next hundred years.
Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
