On 8/23/06, Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Also, the subnet model that NetLMM WG wants to choose is to have >> a unique prefix for each MN. > Having a unique prefix for each MN is not the same as a requirement to perform prefix delegation.
I am not sure if there is any difference as for as protocol is concerned. The mechanism specified in the draft can be used to assign unique prefixes for the hosts as well as for prefix delegation.
Netlmm hosts are required to work with existing stacks, and I would generally expect them to use SLAAC or DHCP in the normal manner. Just that the network advertises a different prefix for each mobile node, e.g., on the point to point link that the node is on. Details to be worked out, this is still work in progress. I would also expect that Netlmm to not disturb other functions. So if someone wanted to deploy a Netlmm network with an additional prefix delegation via DHCP for mobile routers -- that should be possible. In short, I don't think Netlmm can be used as an argument for a new prefix delegation scheme.
Sure, I was just saying that, this mechanism can be useful in the NetLMM scenario as the MAG requires some changes to advertise unique prefixes for each MN for SLAAC. Instead of changing the default router behavior, it is easy extend the RS/RA for assigning unique prefixes. If they want to use DHCP, sure it works. - Syam
--Jari
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
