Sorry typo. In my email below, please change
"My v6ops" to "My v6ops email" Hemant From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Hemant Singh (shemant) Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:12 AM To: Lorenzo Colitti Cc: Howard, Lee; Samita Chakrabarti; [email protected] Subject: Re: [homenet] routing requirements From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 12:26 AM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: Howard, Lee; Samita Chakrabarti; [email protected] Subject: Re: [homenet] routing requirements >If you haven't read the homenet email conversations, how do you know that these are regressions? Some regressions are fairly clear from just glancing at the subject of emails in homenet. The example is ND Proxy and glancing at emails such as "cell phone operators may use a single /64" and hence the need for ND Proxy. This is precisely what we discussed in v6ops and closed in v6ops. >That email says, basically, "it can't be done" without saying why. We had a lot of discussion during the interim meeting and we think it can be done using a routing protocol. Please at least go and >read the strawman I posted to the list. Cmon, now. I included clear text showing why it can't be done to v6ops. My v6ops is open to anyone in v6ops and homenet to reply specifically as to how one will get around the problems I raised with using any ospf or routing protocol for prefix delegation. >Prefix delegation has problems with non-trivial topologies or with multihoming. Preaching to the choir. That is why we punted prefix delegation out of the IPv6 CE router v6ops document. But using a routing protocol to figure out prefix delegation for the problems you describe above remains to be seen. Thanks, Hemant
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
