On 2 Jun 2013, at 21:51, Ralph Droms <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 2, 2013, at 1:51 AM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 2, 2013, at 1:22 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> {ISP Connection} -> Router -> multiple segments each of which contains one >>>> or more routers, some of which have multiple segments which contain >>>> additional routers. >>>> All of the routers below the second tier are downstream from the routers >>>> at the second tier which are downstream from the first tier router. >>> >>> This is trivially solved with PD at the PE router that gets the delegation >>> from the ISP. I thought you were talking about a multi-homed topology. >>> Also trivially solved, but might involve two edge routers each with their >>> own set of prefixes to delegate. >>> >> >> You are assuming that all of the subordinate routers will act as DHCP relays >> rather than doing PD. >> >> That is certainly one possible solution, but, not necessarily ideal in all >> cases. >> >> In cases where the subordinate routers should receive delegations and >> perform their own PD for their subordinate routers, having a larger bit >> field can be useful for greater flexibility. > > Under what circumstances would this deployment model be useful?
Isn't the hipnet model one with recursive PD? (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-grundemann-homenet-hipnet-01#page-11) Tim
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
