Point of terminology... RAs do not assign a prefix to a node, they assign a prefix to the link over which the RA is sent. That is, the router and the node both have an on-link route in their routing table, and any addresses in the prefix are assigned to the interface the RA is sent/received on.
DHCP-PD assigns a prefix to a node. That is, the router has a route in its routing table that is not on-link but points to that node directly, and any addresses in the prefix are assigned to an interface other than the one the RA is sent/received on. -Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Narayanan, Vidya [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 2:35 PM > To: Alexandru Petrescu; marcelo bagnulo braun > Cc: James Kempf; INT Area > Subject: RE: [Int-area] IPv6 addressing model, per-MN subnet prefix,and > broadcast domain > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > > [snip picture and text] > > > How do the nodes configure their global addresses? I mean are they > > > using stateless autconf? > > > > Not sure about what's becoming mandatory and what not. > > There's a draft on MN-AR interface talking about _both_ > > stateless and stateful, haven't checked recently though. > > > > > If they do, how do you prevent the nodes from configuring > > one address > > > per prefix the get in the RADV? > > > > By putting M bit to 1 in RA thus instructing MN not to derive > > an address from the prefix in RA ('M' stands for managed, > > instructing to use DHCP instead). > > > > > wouldn't some of the nodes end up with multiple addresses from > > > different prefixes? > > > > Yes, provided stateless autoconf is used. > > > No. The goal here is strangely different, actually. The goal is not to > advertise all the prefixes in all the RAs - the RA itself will be > tailored per mobile - so, each mobile will only see the prefix that is > being "assigned" to it. > > The other strange thing here is that the mobile may not know that it is > being "assigned" anything - so, it may continue to use stateless > autoconfig, assuming it is a shared prefix. > > The other point here that may be considered weird is that although the > prefix is being "assigned" so to say, there is no lifetime for it > (unlike DHCP-PD, for e.g.) - so, I'm not sure if these prefixes are > pretty much permanently assigned or if, based on the NETLMM location > registration information, these are somehow removed. > > Vidya > > > > > > > breaking the goal of having one node per prefix? > > > > Not sure about the goal of having one node per prefix, where > > is it from? > > I know about a netlmm goal needing MN not to change its > > address (maybe called CoA, not sure), not sure whether this > > is in the reqs draft either. > > > > Alex > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Int-area mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > [email protected] > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
