IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering

Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com> Wed, 23 September 2020 13:33 UTC

Return-Path: <pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.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 1868D3A09D9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 06:33:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pthcH_HxNEoI for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 06:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (stereo.hq.phicoh.net [130.37.15.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76AA03A0DE8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 06:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost [::ffff:127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1kL4tV-0000KeC; Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:33:13 +0200
Message-Id: <m1kL4tV-0000KeC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
From: Philip Homburg <pch-v6ops-9@u-1.phicoh.com>
Sender: pch-b9D3CB0F5@u-1.phicoh.com
References: <8f964b8650cd4b619ff47aed5b07bc67@huawei.com> <7ef6cbcc-164f-383c-658b-b3c0df859535@go6.si> <1af87e24-1410-8f89-b50d-9c61694e4644@foobar.org> <f97b7ac2-0b36-2fae-58fd-eddee6f8b408@gmail.com> <76f10fa7030044c4a0b71443fde92f24@huawei.com> <CAHL_VyC7u7bNJD9pUzbFTrBtifbCVmQtPn4YHHs5g7T6omKwLQ@mail.gmail.com> <2e11a0315196499c81b72c171e014650@huawei.com> <EB3611C3-8849-4670-AFAD-4924AC79E26A@fugue.com> <93e01391b78b4c19be87f58f68281cbf@huawei.com> <CAHL_VyDhUO9mMTXEB1Z53-sA4KtHMu4-vdB0zb-oukanmEdARw@mail.gmail.com> <5b2f71a95a7944f0bcda368c11c6d7a2@huawei.com> <CAHL_VyDP-w9LzQTCkQM-tyjVo+T982aazFJTWeNPvGqHSHRtgQ@mail.gmail.com> <6f5fabd632fb4954adc13ea805be3c0b@huawei.com> <CAHL_VyDO_DTtE2Uj-T2f=a4wdJ2QtNrtO8YwMS88rZtcit5MrQ@mail.gmail.com> <b18832ca2efb44d59d2186863f56481b@huawei.com> <m1kKgil-0000LLC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <7080ee174bdc4ddbb800778f4707d442@huawei.com> <m1kKipE-0000IgC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <f43b44fceb114ceeafa75a48f360aaec@huawei.com> <m1kL3i9-0000IuC@stereo. hq.phicoh.net> <D3C32A83-5DCC-4BE9-93AE-C129ACB27449@employees.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:16:22 +0200 ." <D3C32A83-5DCC-4BE9-93AE-C129ACB27449@employees.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 15:33:08 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/QeunggxL0KsHuQS01uJ3FFJ_FhU>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Flash renumbering
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:33:24 -0000

>Redoing this with ND and the resultign implementation of a spanning tree 
>in DHCP PD/ND doesn't sound tempting. At all.

I fully agree that we should not try to do a spanning tree in DHCP. However,
most home setups tend to have a tree structure. And hierarchical routing is
easy enough to implement.

Does homenet really solve the phone problem I described? Suppose we have a
network with multiple subnets. Assume the connection to the internet
is down.

The phone can easily use its radio link to connect to the internet, but how
does the phone know the extent of the local network? Does the phone assume
that if you have ULA /64 then the router that announced the PIO can also handle
traffic for the ULA /48? 

What if the local network actually has a static prefix and the routers continue
to send PIOs with a global prefix?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email