In message <cc84f8f1.1a1c4%[email protected]> Don Sturek writes: > Hi Curtis, > > SLAAC not working is a major problem. > > Don
Don, Why? This is an assertion without basis as far as I am concerned. Except CGA there is nothing that breaks without SLAAC. Joel brought up ILNP in private email, but I beleive ILNP can also work as the constraints in ILNP are in the ILNP identifier which is not the same as the interface address in ILNP for which there is no constraint. I have subnets running fine using a few /112 allocated from within a /64 with fixed addresses on rack mount hosts and desktops and DHCPv6 for dynamic allocations for laptops. It works fine. Link local addresses are all that is needed to get DHCPv6 to work. No host ever receives a RA since my routers won't give them one, so no host ever tries to generate an address using SLAAC. The only constraint is that any host connecting to my Ethernet or wireless must run a DHCP client and if they want an IPv6 GUA must run a DHCPv6 client. DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 servers are available in every subnet except one GbE subnet in the rack and to a few hosts in my home office. So as far as I am concerned we have an assertion that no SLAAC is a problem and existance proof that it is not. Beside CGA and requiring that hosts run DHCPv6 if they want an IPv6 GUA, what can I not support on these /112 subnets? Curtis > On 9/23/12 4:09 PM, "Curtis Villamizar" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >In message <[email protected]> > >"Joel M. Halpern" writes: > > > >> Since you invited flames... > >> > >> The argument on /64 as the longest prefix is not that it is magically > >> unnatural. > >> Rather, it is that there are a number of current and evolving protocols > >> that depend upon that /64. The obvious example is that SLAAC does not > >> work if subnets are longer than /64. > >> > >> The rules in this regard are written into approved RFCs. If homenet > >> wants to change that, it really needs to go to 6man with a strong case. > >> (for point-to-point inter-router links this was recently relaxed. > >> > >> At the same time, andy operator who insists on giving homes a /64 is > >> being inappropriately restrictive. Homenet should say that, rather > >>than > >> trying to change the IPv6 architecture. > >> > >> Yours, > >> Joel > > > >Joel, > > > >I don't consider your email a flame at all. Thanks for responding. > > > >SLAAC (which I am not at a fan of) won't work but DHCPv6 will so IMHO > >no loss. CGA also won't work but then again I've also never been a > >fan of security half measures. Yes anti-spoofing without prior > >exchange of a key is nice, but no reasonable authorization could be > >based on CGA without also exchanging some sort of key or cert and at > >that point the CGA as a public key is redundant. > > > >If SLAAC and CGA are the only things that break *and* providers do > >hand out prefixes that are too small, then /64 prefixes will have to > >be subdivided. > > > >So a question for you is what else if anything will break? > > > >I also understand that you are suggesting that this be taken to 6man. > >That is a good suggestion. > > > >Curtis > > > > > >> On 9/22/2012 11:30 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote: > >> > 12. This is sure to be controversial. I pointed out that using > >> > subnets longer than /64 is OK as long as they are not leaked > >> > into global routing. Please read the text and changes before > >> > exploding on this topic. It may be necessary to subnet a /64 > >>if > >> > that is all a provider will give you and you need subnets. It > >> > does work and it is no more unnatural than subnetting a class-A > >> > network would be in 1990. It means using DHCPv6 and not using > >> > RA prefixes for GUA (otherwise SLAAC implementations would > >> > likely try to use the whole bottom 64). > >_______________________________________________ > >homenet mailing list > >[email protected] > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
