Dear Alex,
Would you explain why the vehicle would need to get a new prefix (and thus I assume configure all the nodes in the vehicle) every time it enters a new area ?
Thierry On 20/10/12 20:10, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 20/10/2012 18:42, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :On Sat, 20 Oct 2012, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:One point that guided towards choosing ND over DHCP is topology. DHCP topology can be relatively complex with Client/Relay/Server, whereas ND is simpler one-on-one.There is nothing saying DHCPv6-PD can't be done in a single device (the router itself). That's what I do in my home, cisco router, local DHCPv6-PD pool, local DHCPv6-PD server, also installing routes into RIB.YEs, because at home one typically puts up the interface once a month and gets typically the same prefix from ADSL operator as 1 year before. But with vehicles, one connects a vehicle here and gets a prefix, then moves in that area and gets another prefix. At that point, if the router obtaining a prefix wants to delegate further to another vehicle needs to change the delegated prefix. This dynamic change between the received prefix and the delegated prefix is not a matter of DHCP. It can be implemented by like scripting which are independent of DHCP implementation. One has to touch the conf files be it of DHCP or of ND._and_ Relay (or Server). This may be feasible in practice but I think it would be cleaner to have distinct protocols on a same machine for receiving a prefix and for sending a prefix.What is cleaner is to use existing standards where there already is running code.Right, there is cleanliness in reuse. Reuse as much as possible.There is also the question of availability of DHCP software on smaller platforms which have no SIM card. It may be easier to do this with ND in smaller settings.I'd imagine that there already are 2-3 existing FOSS available implementations that do what you need for DHCPv6-PD client and server. Instead you want to invent a new standard and create new code.In addition to FOSS (what is FOSS?) DHCP one also needs to dynamically change the delegated prefix when the assigned prefix changed.I'm not saying this shouldn't be done, I'm just saying I don't really see the rationale for it. I used to hate DHCPv6 role in IPv6, but after a few years of being exposed to it, I've come to accept that this is the way it is. There is code going back to a standard Windows Vista that correctly implements DHCPv6-PD client, and that is what, 5-6 years ago it was released? I've had PD in my home on Cisco code for 3-5 years already, with no server infrastructure at all, just single device doing "everything" for the role needed. If this was 2002, I'd agree with you that ND PD could be feasable, but I believe the train has already left the station and we should focus on keeping IPv6 stable when it comes to how it works, and get implementations going, not new standards.WEll yes, I agree that IPv6 should be kept stable and part of that may be that we try to make sure that a new proposal does not break existing implementation. This is a matter of further work. Alex -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
<<attachment: thierry_ernst.vcf>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
