Hello Alex, On Nov 3, 2012, at 17:41 , Alexandru Petrescu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Le 25/10/2012 15:52, Michael Richardson a écrit : >> >> ralph> Why wouldn't RPL be used for such networks? It has built-in >> PD for ralph> dynamic networks, if I understand it correctly, with >> RA used at the ralph> subnet level. >> >> Alexandru Petrescu <[email protected]> wrote: AP> RA used >> to exchange routes - if this is what you mean, and yes it may be AP> >> used by RPL (last time I read it). >> >> AP> If the question is about this, then I think it is pertinent. >> One may AP> imagine a way to use RPL on the MRs for that purpose. >> >> AP> However, I doubt RPL can Delegate Prefixes (in the pure sense of >> Prefix AP> Delegation). >> >> RPL doesn't do this in protocol, but then, neither does ND. I >> wouldn't extend RPL to do this, however, I'd send a DHCPv6 PD format >> message. It can be a single exchange, and nobody said a single >> program can't speak multiple protocols. > > Yes, but consider that DHCPv6-PD is already used in a rather complicated > way on the MR of an IV (Internet Vehicle). It is used according to > rfc6276, to obtain a prefix from home. In that it is specified that MR > should be both a Requesting Router and a Relay for that tunnel interface. > > On another hand, if the MR of LV requests a Prefix from the IV's MR then > this latter should also be a Relay, but on a real interface as well. > > One ends up with two Relay software on the same machine. I am afraid > this is next to impossible to configure with some existing software. Why two Relays? I believe one relay listening to multiple interface is enough. Romain >> But, I question whether one always needs to get address space, vs >> announce it. I don't know the answer: it really depends upon who >> your second vehicle needs to talk to, and why it thinks that vehicle >> one (and vehicle one's ISP) is willing to give it bandwidth. > > I think both tools of announcing address space, and obtaining address > space, should be available to vehicles, and applied depending on whether > the communication is between two vehicle devices only, or not, whether > the infrastructure is available, or not. > > It is viable that an LV self-configures ULAs based on VIN and announces > them only to vehicles nearby (not to infrastructure). > > It is viable that an LV to get globally routable address space from an IV. > >> If you don't want to speak RPL, then you need to pick the TBD >> homenet-routing-protocol. We don't need a third. > > Needing a third or not - I don't know. But picking homenet protocol, or > RPL for vehicles would probably involve a large change in requirements > of either. > > Alex > >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
