Hi again Xiaohu, > > Thanks for your explanation. I understand the advantages now. > > > > In your approach, to obtain stable IPv6 prefixes for CEs, > some routing > > protocol should be run between the CE and the BR while the BR > > would have to > > maintain a lot of routes for the delegated native IPv6 > > prefixes. > > The routing protocol in this case would be DHCPv6 > prefix delegation. To spread the load, we simply > add more BRs, and make them communicate with each > other either directly in a full mesh or via a set > of gateways in a partial mesh.
This might bear a few more words of explanation. By "the routing protocol in this case would be DHCPv6 prefix delegation", what I mean is that the BR acting as a Delegating Router should register a "link up" event when a CE acting as a Requesting Router asks it for a prefix delegation, and the BR should maintain that link as being up until the CE either moves away or dies. On the backhaul network that connects BRs, then, I am assuming something like an iBGP instance where all BRs advertise their links that are up and withdraw their links that have gone down. Fred [email protected] _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
