Op 31 jan. 2014, om 19:56 heeft Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com> het volgende geschreven:
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Teco Boot <t...@inf-net.nl> wrote: >> > And what happens when the routing protocol finds out that, even though the >> > delegation protocol thinks everything is OK and addresses were delegated >> > just fine, the network is now partitioned? How do you reassign addresses >> > in that case? >> >> I don't see a problem. If the two partitions have border router(s), >> addresses for the prefixes for the connected border router keeps >> functioning. Prefixes for the disconnected border router(s) should be >> deprecated. Is is an internal function on the router, based on topology >> information and configured prefixes, provided by routing protocol and prefix >> distribution protocol. >> >> > How do you tell the prefix assignment protocol that it needs to resolve >> > addressing conflicts when you merge two networks that have the same >> > prefixes? >> >> First we have to verify if this can happen. My favorite is using DHCP-PD >> with server on CPE (edge) box (and elected box for ULA). This box should >> circumvent your scenario. >> > Er, *what*? You are aware that if you have a partition, one of the two > partitions will not be able to reach the DHCP server? Does it matter? Prefixes for unreachable DHCP servers should be deprecated. Leases wil expire. A mobility tool is needed for connection survival (MPTCP, whatever). Yes, here is a need for coupled routing and prefix management. The routing table has state on connectivity to border routers. Prefix management makes use of that. Where is the need for coupled protocols? Teco _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
