On 2012-11-07 1:43 PM, "Ted Lemon" <mel...@fugue.com> wrote:
>On Nov 7, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Victor Kuarsingh <victor.kuarsi...@gmail.com> >wrote: >> I am not sure I would agree that getting a /64 would inherently mean a >> router knows is an intermediate router. There are potential scenarios >> where an edge router may get a /64 and be the ISP edge router (not the >> best case scenario, but potential). >> >> I know this subtle point is somewhat outside the context of this thread, >> but just wanted to make the point. > >Such a router has no prefixes to delegate, so the distinction is >immaterial. There can only be one non-translating router on this >network. This is why I said it's a point outside the context of the main discussion (addressing within the homenet). My point was more around what assumptions may be made by routers which do in fact get a /64. Assuming that routers in the homenet will likely be using similar code (both those that show up on the edge and those which are intermediate ones), other router functions may be automated, including what mode of operation the router takes (edge vs. IR). An example may be security and/or filtering policy. It's the assumption related to those other instances that had me worried. Regards, Victor Kuarsingh > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
