What would happen today if a /64 showed up? Why change that behavior? On 11/8/12 10:09 AM, "Victor Kuarsingh" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> 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 _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
