On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Nov 15, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> The mic line was too long to bring this up: >> You suggest using RFC 3633. How about RFC 2894 (Router renumbering) too? >> Typo: the draft actually cites RFC 3363, which is not what you intended... > > Ditto on the mic line—very frustrating. I think you overestimate the > obstacles to using DHCPv6 PD for this application. I don't think any > protocol extension is required. What is needed is ad-hoc relay > configuration, which is already anticipated. The CPE device can just > allocate a /64 for any PD it receives, and with ad-hoc relaying, it should > all Just Work.
It's comforting that you think I overestimate the issues. > The way ad hoc relaying works is that when you come up, your PD client asks > for a prefix on its upstream port. If it receives PDs, it relays them on > its upstream port. These PDs all wind up at the CPE device, which allocates > /64s to them and forwards them back, all in accordance with the existing DHCP > relay mechanism. Let me say something that will probably get me tarred and feathered. I suspect that if we come up with a good solution for the home, it will be used in small networks wherever they materialize. So I think of a home or SOHO as a special case of a small network. I could imagine, for example, a company that has lots of campuses and lots of buildings in each campus considering each campus or each building to be a "small network" and letting it use this class of procedure within itself. "upstream port"? If I have a multihomed network with a CPE per upstream, and the "inside" interface on one CPE develops an address in a different CPE's prefix, is it "upstream" or "downstream" from that other CPE? Yes, I know those words get printed on plastic my company sells. It think it's a pretty bad paradigm for anything I'd call scalable to anything but the tiniest domain. I would far rather generate a solution that can be used effectively within an arbitrary domain, such as a single area OSPF network, without being unnecessarily hobbled in its thinking. Anything that gives a router a direction is a rather strange hobble in that context. > I think homenet would have to do a draft describing how to set this up, but > it does not require a DHCP extension. There'd be some details to document > on how the routing topology gets set up; perhaps that could be done with OSPF. > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
