On 10/8/11 6:14 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
I think we first need to agree on what we think are the requirements
on prefix stability. What if one of the routers attached to the link
fails and is replaced by a different router?
What if a link partitions? And later merges?
What the user intentionally splits (partitions) a link (e.g., to
create a separate link for the teenage game room); should the network
automatically pick a new prefix for that new link? (How does that
interact with the prefix being in stable storage on the router.)
We talked about the stability requirements on Thursday a bit. From my
perspective the requirement is that crashes, power outages/recycles, and
addition of new devices must not cause existing allocations to change.
Other changes.... they may, and I think it would be too much effort and
complexity to try to prevent all changes in all situations.
I suspect that if we can solve the above cases (e.g., for a link with
two routers that crash, get powered off and on, and then later the user
adds a third router to connect up with the garage network), then we will
end up with something rather complete.
There might be some more difficult aspects if we want to allow a router
or its interfaces to be repurposed, such as splitting an existing link
into two separate links. In that case it might be hard to avoid
renumbering. The requirements question is whether the system needs to be
able to detect that the link is now (intentionally) partitioned and as a
result there are two separate prefixes needed for the two separate
links, or whether the user needs to be able to push the "reset to
factory defaults" if the user is going to reconfigure the topology in
such ways.
Erik
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
