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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 01/11/2014 04:47, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Oct 31, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> The current general mechanism are too general to work for the use case of hierarchical prefix delegation. But if we add hierarchical topology and no bypass requests as constraint conditions, we may be able to make hierarchical prefix delegation work.
> 
> No, that is not the point I am making.   The point I am making is that hierarchical delegation simply won't work, no matter what mechanism you put in place to do it, because the network has to be able to grow incrementally.   With that as a base assumption, you cannot predict where the network will grow, so you don't know how to construct the hierarchy.   Once the hierarchy is constructed, you would have to renumber on a regular basis to make hierarchical delegation work.   I think it is preferable to simply allow for a complete routing table, and then try as best as possible to make routing hierarchical, without demanding perfection.

Well yes. That's exactly why in autonomic management of prefixes,
we need peer to peer negotiation, as in "I need 3 /64s that I
don't have, do you have any spare ones for me?" Maybe it's
badly explained but that is the whole point of our use case.

   Brian