On 11/10/2012 12:09, Tim Chown wrote: > On 1 Oct 2012, at 13:59, RJ Atkinson <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> 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. > > > There is clear consensus in this thread that homenet must support SLAAC and > DHCPv6, and thus the architecture text should reinforce the comments that Ran > has made. > > The residential deployments I am aware of in Europe all support at least /60 > and up to /48. The most common is probably /56. We should not add > complexity to homenet scenarios and break SLAAC to account for ISPs that > might currently only offer a /64.
+1. We are supposed to be specifying the future, not the past. Brian > There have been recent discussions elsewhere I believe on limitations of > prefix delegation in certain types of mobile networks where only a /64 is > offered currently, but those one would hope are temporary until DHCPv6-PD is > supported there. > > Curtis can of course take proposals to 6man for discussion, but the > architecture text here would not include those. > > Tim > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
