Christian Vogt wrote:
Hi Julien,
I don't think there is a problem.
If you use the prefix-per-MN case on a broadcast link, what you get
is a link comprising multiple subnets. RFC 3513 explicitly allows
links with multiple prefixes:
Currently IPv6 continues the IPv4 model that a subnet prefix is
associated with one link. Multiple subnet prefixes may be assigned
to the same link.
(This is, BTW, the passage that Dave Thaler cites in
[draft-thaler-intarea-multilink-subnet-issues].)
In the scenario you describe (the one including MNs A, B, and C), you
simply have a link with 3 prefixes. The unusual, but still
legitimate circumstance in this scenario is that the MNs do not see
their neighbors' prefixes.
Note that a situation where hosts on the same link see different
prefixes may also arise when the link has multiple routers, each
router advertises a different set of prefixes, and no two hosts
receive RAs from the same router due to packet loss. The hosts will
then not be aware of their neighbors' prefixes. Certainly, this is
unlikely to happen, but it may happen.
I think I agree with the description.
I'd add that if the wireless nature of MN-to-AR interface is
point-to-point (not Ethernet) then we do talk about one prefix valid on
that point-to-point link, and about one MN per one prefix; in my
understanding.
However, it is not clear to me how to "move" that prefix from one AR to
another, as the MN moves from one AR to another.
Alex
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
