>> even though this would destroy the benefits of subnetting. ><RCC>I think it is arguable whether bridging is the least damaging >solution. It fundamentally does not work with route-over multi-link >subnets and would therefore require some extra L2 weirdness at a LLN >border router. If ISPs are going to hobble us with /64s then I think you >will find NPTv6 solutions appearing for the same reason NAT is used >today. There are alternatives but, as noted in the architecture draft, >these break SLAAC. So I think the onus is to push back on ISPs ofering >/64s if we want to avoid any kludges.</RCC> >>
Just to further some of the comments I made yesterday. I understand the we don¹t want a /64 to show up, but this may occur for reasons other then the primary intention of the ISP. Many things occur in a network - IP depletion/low avail blocks, errors, mis-configuration etc. No matter why it occurs, ignoring this case is likely not a good idea. I agree with earlier comments that this can be considered as a failure mode. It still needs to be considered for good engineering on how CPEs and homenet gear will behave. Regards, Victor Kuarsingh >> _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
