Hello Ole and Ted: > >>> Sounds like you need to set it up as a NAT. >> >> I really hope you are just making a funny joke here. But it’s not very >> funny. What I want is something that’s operationally simple, not something >> with lots of moving parts that have to be kept track of. NATs in >> particular suck for any UDP-based protocol. > > for "permissionless extensions of the network" there isn't much else than NAT. > Your other likely option is an ND proxy. If you are very sure that nothing > else can be added to the network (we don't want to build a spanning tree > protocol out of ND).
Agreed that ND proxy is not an alternative for routing. It is a one hop extension around a transit link and nothing more. For deeper ”mesh” extensions there are millions of nodes deployed out there that use RPL quite successfully. The design allows to combine the 2 with a high speed backbone (Ethernet) and RPL meshes ganging off ND proxies. But inside a subnet RPL is used to route to hosts so there is no subnet assignment just SLAAC or DHCP. Still those networks scale to ~ten thousand. Good enough for home for a long time. > >>> I wasn't thinking of doing it exactly like the 6lowpan does it. Too bad then... I still fail to see why the model cannot be generalized to more powerful nodes. Anyway a transit and one level of proxy already takes us a long way. All the best, Pascal > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
