Teco, >>> There is something common on prefix distribution in Homenet, small >>> office/home office networks, branch office networks, ad hoc networks and >>> even in enterprise / campus networks. The prefix distribution protocol >>> could be a single protocol. We better not try to converge to a single >>> routing protocol. >> >> how do you do a self-organizing / zero-conf network without making a choice? > > I ment: We better not try to converge to a single routing protocol for > Homenet, small office/home office networks, branch office networks, ad hoc > networks and enterprise / campus networks.
OK, but at least we can pick a single routing protocol for the home. > If distributed info semantics for prefix distribution are well defined, it > doesn't matter how it is delivered. Single encoding method helps, it is not > absolutely required. If a box faces two routing domains, it redistributes. > With DV style of flooding, this is simple and straightforward. right. but we don't have to specify that in this working group, or at least not now. > I still believe hosts shall be informed of information on border routers / > exit links and corresponding prefix information. And I prefer hosts shall not > have a need to snoop routing packets for that. Using a NDP extension is a > no-brainer for me. > > So yes, Homenet shall select a single routing protocol for higher data rate > links (next to LLN routing, that one is separate). > We can check how to run a prefix distribution protocol on top of routing, or > use another carrier (e.g. NDP). > > My opinion: put the prefix distribution protocol on top of NDP, so all nodes > are informed. what are the arguments for involving hosts in the prefix assignment protocol? as opposed the existing router to hosts protocols (ND/DHCP). cheers, Ole
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
