The derived requirements from draft-baker-rtgwg-src-dst-routing-use-cases
(copied below) were based upon the outcome of a meeting at the last IETF in
Berlin among the various "source plus destination routing" draft authors. Fred
will be presenting this draft tomorrow in homenet. This functionality is
fundamental to the operation of a multihomed homenet, so I'd like to get
feedback (on list and during the meeting) on whether these are indeed the
agreed upon requirements between the two groups.
o The routing protocol or mechanism includes a source prefix. It is
acceptable that a default source prefix of ::/0 (all addresses)
applies to routes that don't specify a prefix.
o The routing protocol or mechanism includes a destination prefix,
which may be a default route (::/0) or any more specific prefix up
to and including a host route (/128).
o The FIB lookup yields the route with the most specific (e.g.
longest-match) destination prefix that also matches the source
prefix constraint, or no match.
Thanks,
- Mark
On Nov 5, 2013, at 7:47 AM, Teco Boot wrote:
> I’m happy to confirm recent stable Linux kernel IPv6 subtrees cache problem
> is fixed. No need to do something special here, just give in some ip -6 route
> add default from PREFIX [ via ADDRESS ] [ dev STRING ] commands.
> Sure we need to have a distribution mechanism having all routers know some
> form of (source_prefix, exit_link) mapping. If we take the limitation to
> support only default routes, a simple border router discovery and recursive
> FIB lookup will do. Select the route to the border router, or, on the border
> router, use the right exit link.
> @Fred: I suggest you add my BRDP proposal in your list of efforts. No code
> yet. It is the blueprint for MultiSmartGateway for v6 in olrsd2, to replace
> SmartGateway tunnels which are used in current olsrd.org code.
>
> Teco
>
> Op 5 nov. 2013, om 07:19 heeft Fred Baker (fred) <[email protected]> het
> volgende geschreven:
>
>> Yes, pretty much.
>>
>> On Nov 5, 2013, at 6:39 AM, Acee Lindem <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Mark,
>>> I attended and the majority of the discussion centered on whether the
>>> problem could be solved with a simpler model such as a FIB per provider.
>>> Fred pointed out that this would not handle overlapping source subnets and
>>> the fact that it was possible to solve the general problem with a Patricia
>>> tree and the installation disambiguating routes. Alvaro also commented
>>> that there are use cases beyond homenet. As you'd expect, the next step
>>> was that there needs to be more discussion on the RTG WG list (copied).
>>> Thanks,
>>> Acee
>>>
>>> On 11/4/13 11:05 PM, "Mark Townsley" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Was anyone on this list able to attend the rtgwg meeting today where Fred
>>>> presented draft-baker-rtgwg-src-dst-routing-use-cases-00? I missed it,
>>>> and would be interested in the reaction, feedback, or next steps (if any).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> - Mark
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> homenet mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially.
>> - Marshall McLuhan
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> homenet mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
>
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
