In message <[email protected]> Michael Thomas writes: > On 07/31/2012 01:00 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > On 31/07/2012 01:20, Michael Thomas wrote: > >> On 07/30/2012 05:10 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > >>> If you see some advantage that solves the IPv4 address depletion (a > >>> big point of the transition to IPv6 exercise), then I've missed it. > >>> If so, please point out what I missed. > >> No, not at all and not the point. I'm just of the mind that if > >> we believe that v6 is really, really ready to go there shouldn't > >> be any problem in substituting rfc1918 v4 space with v6 ULA > >> space. If that modest change leads to trouble... > > Well, it surely requires a DNS64 resolver in the CPE too. > > > Having embedded DNS functionality in the CPE is sort of a newish > requirement, yes? If we think that's inevitable for real homenets, > maybe this is a means of moving the ball forward? > > Mike
This requirement is Not at all new. Most low endish CPE get a single IPv4 address from the provider, do NAT, offer PI addresses on the "home" side, offer themselves as DNS resolvers on the home side. Act as a DNS cache using the nameserver(s) offerred by the service provider as forwarders. Most home users get the CPE from the provider and the providers like having a resolver in the CPE so today this is a business requirement, not an IETF requirement. Curtis _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
