Hi Michael,
Thank you for the question! While I need more time to read the references
provided by Adnan and think about the issue, a quick answer to your question
is: in our current design, we require each sub network to have only a single
prefix, otherwise the scheme won't work as currently described. So basically
one operator will get an IPv6 prefix for an edge network so to own the address
space for that prefix. Then in this space, the operator is free to partition it
in the hierarchical way as described in the draft.
Best regards,
Haoyu
-----Original Message-----
From: 6lo <6lo-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2021 3:48 PM
To: Adnan Rashid <adnanrashi...@gmail.com>; int-area@ietf.org; 6...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [6lo] [Int-area] Short Hierarchial IPv6 addresses
While not really a supporter of the scheme, let me ask:
Adnan Rashid <adnanrashi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Consider if you have multi tenant network, then will your scheme work?
Please if you could explain what a multi-tenant network is in this context.
What is the trust relationship between the tenants and the operator?
Who is bringing the connectivity? Who is providing the address space?
Do you expect each tenant to bring their own IPv6 prefix?
Consider BCP38.
> If yes then how can node A from Service Provider-A can communicate with
> node B from Service Provider-B and both are under the same border
> router or edge node?
I think that it is okay if it doesn't work for mixed prefixes from multiple
providers.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6
IoT consulting =-
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
