Re: [homegate] [v6ops] CPE Prefix Sub-Delegation on LAN

On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 13:06:23 +0100
Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

> [included the homenet list]
> 
> > There might be some work to do to say how the dhcpv6 server in the CPE should get the prefix received from the ISP, also when the ISP is not using DHCPv6. For example, with 6rd. However, since the 6rd parameters have to be pre-provisioned or given via DHCP(v4), I can imagine that there's a way to sort this out without too much pain.
> 
> with regards to 6rd, there is nothing special. a 6rd delegated prefix is just like an DHCP PD prefix, for the purpose of internal prefix assignment.
> 
> this problem within the charter of the (rejected) homenet WG effort.
> 
> there are many ways internal prefix assignment and distribution of other configuration information can be done. many of the ideas were discussed during the zerouter BOF (which also failed making it into a WG).
> 
> - Multi-link subnet routing (a shared off link /64 among all nodes. host routes in OSPF)
> - ND proxy (restricted topology)
> - hierarchical DHCP prefix delegation (restricted topology)
> - zOSPF (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dimitri-zospf/)
>   using a new LSA in OSPF to distribute the site prefix plus a mechanism for
>   collision detection.
> 

Another possible addition to the list could be some of the mesh routing
protocols that have/are being developed for wireless and/or sensor
networks. As laptops have overtaken desktops in sales, and they usually
come with wired and wireless interfaces, it probably wouldn't be much
of an unacceptable burden for them to also act mesh routers.
They'll do more throughput and have faster CPUs than most routers that
would be present in most residential and SOHO environments.

Regards,
Mark.

> in my view this requires new work.
> 
> cheers,
> Ole
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops