IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router

Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Thu, 28 July 2011 15:42 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E82321F8BEC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 08:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.914
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.914 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.085, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W3hry-SqZOKr for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 08:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DCFF21F8BC6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jul 2011 08:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:df8::96:129a:ddff:feb1:e750] ([IPv6:2001:df8:0:96:129a:ddff:feb1:e750]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p6SFgDrF025369 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:42:15 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-30-700568306"
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3QpNQA6PEw25sJGroheBBwoOJ9sFBxRb92mQVL0wtYBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:42:13 -0400
Message-Id: <C4773309-8016-41B9-BAFA-B1D2925C6645@bogus.com>
References: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C302589EE6@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr3QpNQA6PEw25sJGroheBBwoOJ9sFBxRb92mQVL0wtYBw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]); Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:42:15 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] default LAN routing protocol for IPv6 CE router
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:42:19 -0000

On Jul 27, 2011, at 1:25 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 12:28, Hemant Singh (shemant) <shemant@cisco.com> wrote:
> IPv6 CPE router vendors, please give feedback.  Does anyone object if we specify the default routing protocol as OSPFv3 with only area zero for the IPv6 CE router bis document?   Or would you prefer the document is silent on specification of any  default?
> 
> 
> Can such a default be extensible to exchange different types of information than just reachability? For example, can it propagate information such as "this is a guest network and this is an internal network" or "this is a prefix that I have tentatively assigned but do not own yet"? If not, then perhaps something more flexible like IS-IS would be better.

If the routing protocol were not dependent on the ip layer having already been bootstrapped that might the ease the complexity and depedancy graph during setup...

> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email