On 2012-05-07 20:27, Michael Richardson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> I read this document just now.
> What I understand is that level-2+ routers go to "the" ISP to get an
> additional /64. The ISP could return anything... it might be good if it
> returned a /64 adjacent to those already assigned, but it can do
> anything. The ISP->customers assignments are not aggregated.
Not *necessarily* aggregated. I would have thought aggregation remains
valuable.
>
> This has interesting properties for efficient use of address space, and
> also for permitting home networks to be as big or small as desired.
Efficiency at the level of filling /56s really isn't a worry, is it?
It would just be simpler to allocate each subscriber a /56.
> There is really no additional overhead in the homenet, as one is likely
> throwing /64 routes around most of the time anyway. For the ISP, it's
> up to them.
>
> My only problem is that I don't understand how it works when you have
> two ISPs.
I think both of these assumptions will be false for a substantial fraction
of subscribers:
This document assumes that the vast majority of home networks will
connect to a single ISP and will be generally constructed in a tree
architecture.
Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
