On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 22:12, Hemant Singh (shemant) <shem...@cisco.com>wrote:
> >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. > If a cell phone operator gives you a single /64, what do you propose to do? >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. > Nope, you re-forwarder an email that you wrote saying why you thought it couldn't be done. You don't say why the strawman architecture I proposed can't work. **** > > >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. > Please read the slides I posted and comment.
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
