> I agree. Since we need to configure unique prefixes to each router in > the home anyway, it should not be any problem to do the same for a > router ID (or even just use an address from the configured prefix as > router ID, which should then be unique). A while ago, there were some > plans in AUTOCONF to specify how to use DHCPv6 (-PD) in a multi-hop > network for configuring prefixes in the network. As in a home network, I > assume there is always at least one border router with the global > prefix, specifying something like that seems to be reasonable for me (in > a MANET, that can be more difficult, because there is not necessarily > such a central entity as the border router).
I think there will be, by default, multiple "border routers." In my house I currently have 6 devices that provide internet connectivity, and I assume that number is going nowhere but up. Each of these devices could, in theory, be a "border router," in some way. What saves the day is that I don't allow 4 of them to "talk" on the internal network, and the other two are carefully segregated. But there's no reason for any of this --there's no reason I shouldn't be able to use all of them, especially as some of them might be able to reach outside networks in addition to the Internet at large that others might not be able to. :-) Russ _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
