Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se> wrote:
>> The deployment challenge of that is that every router must support HNCP
and
>> must support SADR.
> Yes, there is indeed a problem here with incremental deployment.
> That's why I think there might be upside in "homenet lite" which drops the
> arbitrary topology requirement and keeps the "routed home" requirement,
but
> also brings with it the service discovery part. Perhaps it's an easier
chunk
> of code to deploy if vendors do not need to implement full homenet but
> instead implement RFC7084 plus a few other things?
So, 7084++ or HomeNet-Lite.
> High level would be to use DHCPv6-PD, turning sub-router WAN firewall off
and
> enabling service discovery proxies, as I outlined in previous email.
I agree. 7084bis should suggest downstream DHCPv6-PD be supported, and we
need to explicitely signal there when HNCP is available so that we don't wind
up double allocating things, etc.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
