On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:09 AM, Alexandre Petrescu < alexandre.petre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Le 07/02/2018 à 18:29, Tom Herbert a écrit : > >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 8:49 AM, Alexandre Petrescu < >> alexandre.petre...@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petre...@gmail.com>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Le 06/02/2018 à 05:52, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit : >> >> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Tom Herbert <t...@quantonium.net <mailto: >> t...@quantonium.net> <mailto:t...@quantonium.net >> <mailto:t...@quantonium.net>>> >> wrote: >> >> We like like to request that the dmm WG consider ILA as a candidate >> protocol for the 3GPP "Study on User Plane Protocol in 5GC". >> >> >> Echoing Tom's earlier comment about this: I think the address assignment >> sections (6.3 and 8.3) should be reworded to clarify that >> for general purpose hosts, best practice is not to use singleton >> addresses, but always to provide a /64 prefix. >> >> >> I would say a prefix yes, but prefer a /63 and shorter. >> >> Alex, >> >> I'm curious as to why you'd need even shorter prefixes. >> > > This is an optional accessory. > A /63 prefix is beneficial for a Mobile Router, or 'IoT Router', for > local area tethering, or for in-vehicle networks. It gets a /63 from > the ISP and makes two /64s out of it. One for its WiFi interface and > one for its Ethernet interface. > > Alex, Why not just get a /64 for WIFI and one for Ethernet? That would be the common case any way if they are attached to two different providers. > If it only gets a /64 then it cant make other /64s out of it and it > can't route. > I'm a bit amused by the phrase "only gets a /64". Assigning a /64 to a device is the equivalent of assigning four billion IPv4 address spaces after all! Why not just carve up a /64 into bunch of /96s or something like that for down stream allocation? Tom
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
