Re: [Anima] [homenet] ANIMA scope + homenet interaction + charter v15

Hi, Ted,

Yes, we mixed different concepts. Actually, this was a very good discussion. It gives a very good hints to improve the autonomic prefix management draft. Now, we know prefix management should be at least categoried into prefix assignment and prefix distribution. :) Thanks for your participation in this discussion.

Best regards,

Sheng
________________________________________
From: homenet [homenet-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Ted Lemon [mellon@fugue.com]
Sent: 01 November 2014 20:31
To: Sheng Jiang
Cc: Benoit Claise; homenet@ietf.org; Markus Stenberg; anima@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [homenet] [Anima] ANIMA scope + homenet interaction + charter      v15

On Nov 1, 2014, at 7:41 AM, Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com> wrote:
> But getting back to where we start the discussion, I still think in a large network, the requesting prefix may not always be /64. It is reasonable to have multiple distributed sources for prefix assignment, in a large network. Autonomic network use case also includes to manage the prefix resource among these prefix pools.

It's certainly true that if you have multiple repositories for prefixes to assign, those repositories will need to transfer more than one /64 at a time, and it will be desirable to maintain pools of prefixes on these repositories that are aggregated into larger prefixes.   But prefix _assignment_ will always be a single /64.   I suspect that this is the core of our miscommunication--if you talk about prefix assignment and prefix distribution as if they are the same thing, which is what we started out doing, then it's easy to imagine that we are talking about the same thing when really one of is talking about assignment (me) and the other about distribution (you).  Sorry about that.

_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet