Re: [Iotops] Automatically connecting to stub networks...

Philip Homburg <> Fri, 04 December 2020 10:51 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A89053A0930; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 02:51:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 97uSfrgn0JVH; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 02:51:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7F723A091C; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 02:51:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [::ffff:]) by with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1kl8gf-0000EWC; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 11:51:41 +0100
Message-Id: <>
Cc: Toerless Eckert <>,
From: Philip Homburg <>
References: <695953.1606952552@dooku> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 4 Dec 2020 09:57:38 +0100 ." <>
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 11:51:39 +0100
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 08:59:11 -0800
Subject: Re: [Iotops] Automatically connecting to stub networks...
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IOT Operations <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 10:51:59 -0000

>To me the most simple model is around the following constraints/requirements:
>      stub-router ----link --- infra-router
>a) stub-router and infra-router are potentially different admin, aka:
>   we do not want to use signaling between them such as a typical
>   link-state-routing protocol where you can not create good trust-domain
>   boundries within the topology. Dijkstra protos are a bit better, but
>   i think no one has tried to come up with good definitions for "internal"
>   trust boundaries.
>b) infra-router hands out prefix(es) to stub-router. It shouldn't have
>   anything to say about how stub-router uses them. So stub-router could
>   subtend sub-prefixes as it sees fit. Infra router does NOT accept
>   prefixes back from stub-router. 

Indeed. We need to have a model where there can be a 'core network' that
either runs HNCP/Babel in the case of homes, small business or OSPF (or equiv)
and static configuration in the case of entrerprise.

Attached to those core routers are small trees that do not run a routing
protocol, but use a hierarchical mechanism to obtain prefixes.

A core router should provide the root of each tree with as many /64s as is
needed to number the tree.

We currently have a mechanisms for the hierarchical part, which is DHCPv6 PD.
It is far from ideal, but we can try to specify how it should be deployed.

Of course, this assumes that the core network has enough address space to 
number all of the trees.