Re: [DNA] Issue 6: DNAHostLinkIDList

[Sathya Narayanan <sathya@research.panasonic.com>]

JinHyeock  -

You are right. I didn't realize that before. Thanks for correcting me. I
feel a lot more comfortable now.

Now, is it ok the REQUIRE the sysadmin to configure the routers with
atleast one prefix even if stateful address configuration is used. I
guess it is ok. I don't know what others think.

Greg -

Your idea to use the configured non-link local prefix is a good one, but
it still leaves the scenario where the router is configured only with
link-local addresses on it local interface. AFAIK, thats going to be the
most common scenario. So, if we require the routers to advertise atleast
one prefix, it MUST be configured on the router even when stateful
address configuration is used.

Sathya

> Dear Sathya
>
> Thanks for your trouble advancing the work.
>
>> I still haven't closed Issue 2:, changes to support Stateful
>> autoconfiguration scenario. The current text depends on DHCP CONFIRM to
>> address this scenario. I am still uncomfortable requiring configuration
>> of each router on the link with the smallest prefix - a sysadmin then
>> becomes responsible for keeping track of the smallest prefix and
>> updating the configuration each time.
>
>
> Sysamin doesn't have to keep track of the smallest prefix and
> configure it to each router manually.
>
> Sysamin only have to configure a router to advertise at least one
> prefix. Then, after a while, the routers on the same link, upon
> hearing the prefixes from each other, will pick the smallest prefix
> and advertise it in either PIO or LPIO.
>
> Thanks for your kind consideration.
>
> Best Regards
>
> JinHyeock