Don Sturek <d.stu...@att.net> wrote:
> Note I changed the title on the thread......
Thank you.
I would like to know what a multi-link subnet via /128 means.
> My problem with RFC 5889 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5889) is that it
> solves the problem simply by saying "don't allocate link locals". The
> issue I have is that it precludes the use of mDNS (which operate off of
> link locals).
1) mDNS doesn't have to use link locals, it can, and does distribute ULAs and
GUAs v6 addresses just fine.
2) sdnsext might well fix mDNS to run across multiple subnets, not just
a multi-link subnet.
> Some questions:
> 1) Would you recommend then the allocation of ULA's with a /128 (as
> opposed to globals). There are a lot of applications that really only
> need to communicate within a residence and don't really have a need in
> having all devices using globals
Yes to ULAs or to NCN's GUAs... but I understand the question.
> 2) If we use ULA's, there does not seem to be guidance around which
> interfaces to perform prefix delegation on and which should not
> (specifically, I am thinking of rules that a border router would use as to
> where to issue PIOs in a RPL sense)
My reading/understanding/coding is that a border router which thinks it is
grounded (G=1) should issue PIOs.
> 3) And of course if there ended up being more than one border router,
> there is also not guidance on how to combine or proxy ULA prefixes (maybe
> this topic could be a Homenet solution....)
homenet might provide a solution outside of the RPL space for deciding who
will be the root ULA provider and how that might get distributed, but that
won't help many RPL/LLN deployments.
> In case anyone is wondering, our initial application deployment using
> ZigBee IP was Smart Energy Profile 2.0 (SEP 2.0). There was a
> requirement to perform service discovery without a centralized repository
> (since it was a multivendor deployment where no device manufacturer wanted
> responsibility for a centralized DNS). mDNS (extended to use ULAs) was
> our choice. It would seem with a /128, we would still need the same
> extensions to mDNS. We plan to support Wi-Fi, HomePlug Power Line
> Carrier and ZigBee IP in a combined network topology within the home.
I assume you used trickle-mcast to propogate the mDNS.
Across those three links types, did you have a single ULA/64?
How did the gateways between the media types know that they were not at a
scope-3 boundary?
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
pgpOGyvpEpcep.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
