I have read this draft. It looks very good.
I agree (having reviewed probably all the various iterations of that
document).
I have the following questions:
1. What are the interoperability considerations if the node also
contains (historical) configuration for acting as an RFC7084 router?
Especially with respect to requirement L2 and L8.
I think that is more of an implementation matter not so much
draft-relevant. I mean sure if you design your OS from the ground up
with that in mind that would be easy. However in the reference
implementation we deliberately do not do that as that would require
emulating a lot of OS-specific behavior.
You can however replicate this configuration by defining the interface
as hnet with mode=leaf (i.e. always internal, not connected to routers =
doesn't speak RP nor HNCP on it) and you can give hnet a hint on what
size and or id of the prefix you want to have assigned.
As for L8 (running DHCPv6) hncp-04 has similar requirements, DHCPv6
behavior was at some point actually in the PA draft but it was moved to
hncp I suppose for clarity reasons though Pierre could probably talk
about this in more detail.
2. may/should/must a Homenet router that participates in the
draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment-03.txt also act as a proxy for an
old RFC7084 router connected to one interface?
This - as well - is defined in hncp-04 instead and we do this in the
reference implementation. Internally the delegating router announces the
DP on behalf of the legacy router using HNCP and inserts a local route.
Cheers,
Steven
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
