On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, Ray Hunter (v6ops) wrote:
I have read this draft and find it interesting.
The use of host routes would seem appealing to avoid
1) any need for stateful "home agent" and multiple forwarding
2) renumbering of the end nodes when roaming
3) relatively small number of hosts compared to the complexity of the
topology
Use of RFC7217 addresses would seem appropriate, but that assumes that DAD
really is reliable at the time a node attaches to the homenet for the first
time.
Wouldn't it be better to adopt
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-02 and
just give every device its own /64 and move that around?
My worry about the whole L3 approach is how long does it take to
re-establish packet flows after the L2 wifi handover between APs compared
to an L2 only solution?
What's the benefit/downside of this approach compared to having roaming
nodes actively take part in the HNCP acting as "multi-homed routers"
with an internal (invariant) /64 VLAN used to bind to applications?
I'd say this approach adds one more layer that needs to come up before
packets can start flowing again, especially since it would require routing
protocol participation as well, I'd imagine.
If 802.11 can assure L2 handover in 1 second (I don't know how long the
handover time is, just guessing), how much are we willing to add in time
because of L3 mechanisms added on top of this, before packet flows are up
and running again?
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
