> Having missed the meeting, anything more recent on MLSR than this:
>
> draft-ietf-ipv6-multilink-subnets-00
> Multi-link Subnet Support in IPv6 (2002-07-08, Expired)
>
> draft-thaler-ipngwg-multilink-subnets-02
> Multi-link Subnet Support in IPv6 (2001-11-29, Expired)
>
> The only refe
f.org; Erik Nordmark (nordmark)
Subject: Re: [homenet] Multilink subnet routing (MLSRv2)
In message
"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" writes:
> Hi Ole:
>
> I think you're getting closer and closer to the models that were
> discussed in RPL, 6LoWPAN and Autoconf.
>
&
Erik,
>> to expand on the ideas I presented on MLSR (or rather MLSRv2 as it hasn't
>> really been described anywhere) as a method for numbering a routed home.
>> please let me be clear that I'm not convinced this is a good idea. i.e. why
>> not just get< /64?
>> I do think we could get somethi
In message
"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" writes:
> Hi Ole:
>
> I think you're getting closer and closer to the models that were
> discussed in RPL, 6LoWPAN and Autoconf.
>
> There are several components to the solution that was proposed there:
> - capability to register an IPv6 address using
In message <17d930d0-572c-482e-8be7-e782e4930...@townsley.net>
Mark Townsley writes:
>
> it would seem that we only have 3 choices once we run out of /64s to
> give out on links that for whatever reason we cannot bridge on.
>
> 1. No IPv6
> 2. NAT IPv6
> 3. MLSRv2 (if what you propose works
In message
Ole Troan writes:
> Erik, et al,
>
> to expand on the ideas I presented on MLSR (or rather MLSRv2 as it
> hasn't really been described anywhere) as a method for numbering a
> routed home. please let me be clear that I'm not convinced this is a
> good idea. i.e. why not just get < /
On Oct 10, 2011, at 2:43 PM, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> On 10/9/11 3:38 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
>> Erik, et al,
>>
>> to expand on the ideas I presented on MLSR (or rather MLSRv2 as it hasn't
>> really been described anywhere) as a method for numbering a routed home.
>> please let me be clear that I'
On 10/9/11 3:38 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
Erik, et al,
to expand on the ideas I presented on MLSR (or rather MLSRv2 as it hasn't really
been described anywhere) as a method for numbering a routed home. please let me be
clear that I'm not convinced this is a good idea. i.e. why not just get< /64?
I
> "Ole" == Ole Troan writes:
Ole> we (as in homenet) do not want to require host changes. I also
Ole> think the issues with flooding ND has been explored in RFC4903.
RPL benefits from host changes, but if you provide proxy-ND for the
hosts which have not changed, then it much the sa
Hi Ole
> we (as in homenet) do not want to require host changes.
And when hosts get smarter we (as in people living in homes) should
benefit from it.
The case of plain hosts was long debated but it would have overloaded
the specs quite a bit. What we have so far:
The backbone router proxies ND
Pascal,
we (as in homenet) do not want to require host changes.
I also think the issues with flooding ND has been explored in RFC4903.
cheers,
Ole
On Oct 10, 2011, at 9:33 , Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> Hi Ole:
>
> I think you're getting closer and closer to the models that were
> discu
Hi Ole:
I think you're getting closer and closer to the models that were
discussed in RPL, 6LoWPAN and Autoconf.
There are several components to the solution that was proposed there:
- capability to register an IPv6 address using ND extensions
- capability to extend a subnet over multiple hops (R
it would seem that we only have 3 choices once we run out of /64s to give out
on links that for whatever reason we cannot bridge on.
1. No IPv6
2. NAT IPv6
3. MLSRv2 (if what you propose works, I don't yet see why it wouldn't)
I think this is a case of what is the least bad option. We shouldn'
13 matches
Mail list logo
