[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: draft-bagnulo-pshim6-01.txt




El 15/05/2007, a las 10:21, Deguang Le escribió:


Thank you very much for your explanation.
As you said, the p-shim box has to perform the router function and advertise the route through some routing protocol (e.g. IGP) each time when a node in the site wants to establish communication with external nodes. Right? :-)


not each time.
the P-shim box will announce a route towards the generic CMULA prefix so it will sink all packets containing a CMULA destiantion address. If you have internal CMULAs prefixes, these will be mroe specific than the generic CMULA prefix, so, packets with the local CMULA prefix will be routed with this more specific routes (rahter than being sink towards the P-shim6 box)

If this is true, I wonder if this mechanism is efficient because I think it needs take considerable time to update the routes in the site (especially when the site is large including many routers) each time before the node can establish communication with external nodes.


i don't think this is the case, see above...

makes sense?

regards, marcelo


What do you think?

Cheers,
Deguang






Regards, marcelo
With Best Regards,
Deguang


then P-shim6 box would replace the CMULA to a globally routable PA address. So the CMULAs would be routed inside the sites and PA address will be routed in the interdomain
that makes sense?
Regards, marcelo

Therefore, I only wonder how this packet could be routed from H1 to P-shim box correctly.

With best regards,
Deguang



Regards, marcelo

The reasions are ss follows:
According to rfc2373, routers must not forward any packets with site-local source or destination addresses outside of the site.

Reference [12] has the following description:
Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses are intended for local communications, usually inside of a site.

RFC4193 provides operational guidelines that forbid default routing of local addresses between sites in section 4.1.

By the way, the reference [12] seems have been updated by RFC 4193. [12] Hinden, R. and B. Haberman, "Centrally Assigned Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses", draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01 (work
         in progress), February 2005.

Cheers,
Deguang