On 30 Sep 2012, at 19:33 , Curtis Villamizar wrote:
Claim (A):
> Breaking SLAAC is bad.
Breaking SLAAC breaks interoperability, and will keep
various networked devices disconnected, which is a
*fundamental* problem.
Fundamentally, DHCPv6 is not widely enough supported
(today / soon) for it to be a sufficient answer
to getting network-capable devices onto the network.
There might be a time in future where the situation
with DHCPv6 support changes, but we aren't there today,
and we won't be there soon.
Claim (B):
> Consumer oriented providers handing out /64s
> to home nets is also bad.
Agreed (s/consumer-oriented/any/).
HomeNet WG ought to be VERY clear about this.
HomeNet WG ALSO ought NOT "enable" or "encourage"
such behaviour by encouraging ANY scenarios
where SLAAC can't work properly.
Claim (C):
> But if a homenet does get nothing more than a /64,
> and multiple subnets are needed, then SLAAC gets broken.
I don't think that last bit above is broadly agreed,
at least as of now.
It does not obviously follow that "keeping devices
disconnected" is better than "not being able to subnet
as much as desired".
Separately, it is not obvious that those are the *only*
two possible approaches to the issue you seem concerned
with (i.e. /64 from a provider && desire subnets).
SUMMARY:
>From my perspective, there is a logic fault in the
combination of the quoted statements. The quoted
text is equivalent to logic of this form:
If (A && B) THEN C.
However, from where I sit, the combination of (A && B)
does not necessarily imply C. It could mean that one
decides to waive the requirement (B) to keep every device
connected, or that one devices a new alternative (D),
or something else entirely.
If there are some additional data that would make the
above true, then it would help to get those onto the
table, and figure out how they would factor into the logic.
Cheers,
Ran
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
