>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2011, Shishio Tsuchiya wrote: >> >>> 2^64 host address space would be too enough for homenet. >> >> >> I would just like to comment on this even though you retracted your question. >> >> As an ISP, I do not want to participate in a home with hundreds or thousands of active IPv6 addresses that I need to keep state for. Most likely, when we have central equipment participating in a home network, we'll implement a limit on number of neighbours it'll allow on the subnet. Doing ND/NS a lot takes resources. >> >> If customer wants to use more IPv6 addresses, we'll require them to get a home router and PD address space to it to distribute the ND/NS load. >>
>Agreed. But I think it is worth noting that nd-proxy is practical in mobile networks where each subscriber gets a unique /64. >Mobile network attachment has popped up a few times in homenet discussions. Yes, this will useful in a number of use cases with mobile attachment. Tethering and other like operations come to mind. A good reference is - draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-eps for mobile operation. Victor K >Cb >> -- >> Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
