Well, why can't you carry the prefix info and metrics in IGP and use RAs/ND only at the first hop router (the router that has a host route to the client)?
- Hannu >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Teco Boot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 21:41 >To: Flinck, Hannu (NSN - FI/Espoo) >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: RE: [rrg] [Fwd: I-D >Action:draft-carpenter-renum-needs-work-00.txt] > >Hi Hannu, > >> However, the pdf >> presentation leads me to wonder the interactions of the extended RAs >> with IGPs. They should not be transparent to each other, shouldn't >> they? > >There are some options here. My current thought is use IGP to >the maximum extent (so I can blame the IGP:-). All packet >forwarding is using FIB lookup. 1st on DA, if no_match on BR >address. I'm not sure yet on what a BR should inject in the >IGP, the full prefix it owns or just its configured prefix on >an interface. I'll write the options down in the I-D on BRDP >Based Routing (give me to the end this week). >The BRDP metric (UPM) is related to metrics of IGP, but not >one to one. UPM is for both directions and would be "uniform" >for different IGPs. > >> The use of ND RA in the MANET network might be optimal, but not >> necessarily so in the intra domain without taking into consideration >> interactions with IGP. > >I think it is always a compromise. Using ND is neutral on >IGPs. And IPv6 routers have ND functions. >Hosts may use BRIOs, ND is preferred over IGP for this reason. > >Teco. > > > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
