Dave, On 08/11/2012 12:57, Dave Taht wrote: > On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012, 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. >> >> Yes, doing protocol based brinding (L2 bridge 0x86dd packets) is the only >> way to go as far as I can tell. > > Um, er, ah, no, for many years now there has been the AHCP + babeld, > which routes /128s out of a /64 across any sort of wired/wireless > network over as many hops as needed. > > I've been doing my best to ignore this discussion, and work on > improving that code.
Code is good, but where is the spec that we can refer to? As far as I can tell there's only an expired draft: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-chroboczek-ahcp-00.txt and RFC 6126, which is Experimental. > > You guys can beat your brains out over dhcp's approaches all you want, > and expect your ISPs in a cloudy future to deliver something bigger > than a /64 ... Some ISPs will do that much sooner. Brian > > and bridge low speed wifi over high speed ethernet all you want - > > - but me, I kind of like being able to move transparently from AP to > AP and from wired to wireless and back again, and to not need anything > bigger than a /64 to do it. > > Given the trends towards excessive dynamicism throughout the IPv6 > deployment, and the naming issues, and various ways proposed to > monetize/make scarce /sub 64 allocations by the ISPS. I think the > market will pick ipv6 nat and something like AHCP. > > > > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
