On 08/11/2012 15:09, Victor Kuarsingh 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.
Exactly. It would be very bad for the end users to ignore this reality.
On 08/11/2012 15:02, Sander Steffann wrote:
>> > 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.
>
> Yes please. I think some ISPs *need* to get a signal like this.
Sure, but that does *not* excuse us from specifying how the end user
gets service in such a situation.
Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
