On Jun 2, 2013, at 5:02 PM, Tim Chown <t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2013, at 21:51, Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 2, 2013, at 1:51 AM, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 2, 2013, at 1:22 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote:
>>>>> {ISP Connection} -> Router -> multiple segments each of which contains
>>>>> one or more routers, some of which have multiple segments which contain
>>>>> additional routers.
>>>>> All of the routers below the second tier are downstream from the routers
>>>>> at the second tier which are downstream from the first tier router.
>>>>
>>>> This is trivially solved with PD at the PE router that gets the delegation
>>>> from the ISP. I thought you were talking about a multi-homed topology.
>>>> Also trivially solved, but might involve two edge routers each with their
>>>> own set of prefixes to delegate.
>>>
>>> You are assuming that all of the subordinate routers will act as DHCP
>>> relays rather than doing PD.
>>>
>>> That is certainly one possible solution, but, not necessarily ideal in all
>>> cases.
>>>
>>> In cases where the subordinate routers should receive delegations and
>>> perform their own PD for their subordinate routers, having a larger bit
>>> field can be useful for greater flexibility.
>>
>> Under what circumstances would this deployment model be useful?
>
> Isn't the hipnet model one with recursive PD?
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-grundemann-homenet-hipnet-01#page-11)
>
> Tim
>
Right. I think the recursive model is specified in HIPnet without any
motivation. I've been meaning to ask if the non-recursive model would work in
HIPnet.
- Ralph
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
