[Battlemesh] Session about multi-homed IPv6 mesh networks and auto-configuration
borgers at mi.fu-berlin.de
Tue Apr 19 17:47:57 CEST 2016
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 08:24:43AM -0700, Dave Taht wrote:
> one problem hnetd does not handle at the moment is the concept of
> having a metric ton of prefixes available to choose from and selecting
> an appropriate subset to use and redistribute. Consider a network with
> 1000 routers and 100 exit nodes - you might want 3-5 prefixes per
> router to give you 3-5 possible exits, and rotate around them over
> time. Otherwise you end up carrying a lot of routing traffic for ipv6
> addresses that are mostly unused.
Very good point. The idea is that the algorithm presents us a list of possible
prefixes and we choose from these prefixes based on a meteric we like, e.g. hop
count, link quality, throughput, preference lists.
Sparse ip space is a problem.
> Also consider a network where the available exit prefixes are, like, a
> /60 and thus individual exit nodes cannot supply enough prefixes to
> cover all the routers in the first place.
I think first we need a mechanism to announce the prefix delegation service
through a routing protocol or a something like hnetd. If the delegating
router/gateway is out of prefixes they should stop announcing the service.
> Hncp also wants to assign those real addresses to itself, and doesn't
> cope with p2p assignment in the spec (tho julius extended it to /128s
> I think) I am actually not huge on global reachability for internal
> routers and would prefer ULAs, maybe grabbing a real ipv6 address for
> long enough to get an update, that's it.
I'm still in the process of understanding hncp. What do you mean by p2p
I do think global reachability is a important issue. There will be a ULA mesh
> Battlemesh mailing list
> Battlemesh at ml.ninux.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Battlemesh