On 08/11/2012 13:41, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, Robert Cragie wrote:
>
>> In a lot of these conversations, the "lightswitch guys" (as someone
>> called the LLN proponents) seem to get forgotten.
>
> So let's just say that giving a single /64 to the home is incompatible
> with homenet architecture, and we need more addresses. I'm fine with that.
>
> I see little reason to support /64 for homenet, because if there is only
> a single subnet, there is not much to network with within the home,
> there is only a single subnet.
I wish I could agree. But if we don't provide for this situation in
the architecture, we are simply ignoring a segment of the real world,
and that is unrealistic. We need to design things so that if a homenet
user switches between a /56 ISP and a /64 ISP, stuff just reconfigures
itself to bridging mode (and any boxes that can't do that report the
problem in an intelligible way).
Also consider a dual-homed homenet where one ISP gives a /64 and the
other gives a /56. I guess that has to revert to bridging mode too.
Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
