On 08/11/2012 13:45, Mattia Rossi wrote:
>
>> On 08/11/2012 12:25 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> On 08/11/2012 12:05, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>>> On Nov 8, 2012, at 6:41 AM, Brian E Carpenter
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Fine, but when such an end customer buys a second router and plugs
>>>>> it in,
>>>>> will she get an error message that says "Please find a new ISP"?
>>>> In this case I think our only option is to fall back to bridging.
>>> Without some fundamental surgery on the IPv6 specs, I fear that is true,
>>> so does it have to become (gulp) a feature of the homenet architecture?
>>>
>>> I would hate that but at the moment I see no alternative. There is
>>> another alternative, routed ULA within the homenet and NPTv6 at the
>>> border, but we've already said we don't want to recommend that.
>>>
>>> I think the following paragraph of the architecture document needs
>>> to be revised accordingly:
>>>
>>> The home network needs to be adaptable to such ISP policies, and thus
>>> make no assumptions about the stability of the prefix received from
>>> an ISP, or the length of the prefix that may be offered. However, if
>>> only a /64 is offered by the ISP, the homenet may be severely
>>> constrained (with IPv6 not reaching all devices in the home, or use
>>> of some form of IPv6 NAT being forced), or even unable to function.
>>> While it may be possible to operate a DHCPv6-only network with
>>> prefixes longer than /64, doing so would break SLAAC, and is thus not
>>> recommended.
>>>
>>> Something like:
>>>
>>> The home network needs to be adaptable to such ISP policies, and thus
>>> make no assumptions about the stability of the prefix received from
>>> an ISP, or the length of the prefix that may be offered. However, if
>>> only a /64 is offered by the ISP, the homenet may be severely
>>> constrained. Attempting to use subnet prefixes longer than /64
>>> would break SLAAC, and is thus not recommended. Using ULA prefixes
>>> internally with NPTv6 at the boundary would be possible, but is not
>>> recommended for reasons given elsewhere. The least damaging solution
>>> would be for the internal routers to revert to bridging mode,
>>> even though this would destroy the benefits of subnetting.
>>>
>> I don't think bridging should be considered for homenet. Don't forget
>> the following in the charter:
>>
>> "Also, link layer networking technology is poised to become more
>> heterogeneous, as networks begin to employ both traditional Ethernet
>> technology and link layers designed for low-powered sensor networks."
>>
>> In a lot of these conversations, the "lightswitch guys" (as someone
>> called the LLN proponents) seem to get forgotten.
>>
> So what happens if the "lightswitch guys" want to plug-in a router,
> which they have to, as they can't bridge, but there's only one exit
> router from one ISP which is managed and gets a /64 only?
> SLAAC relay? I think in this case a /64 is simply not acceptable.
OK, so there are failure cases and that too needs to be stated in the
architecture. Send text.
Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
