So I would suggest something like:
"The home network needs to be adaptable to such ISP policies, and thus make no assumptions about the stability of the prefix received from an ISP, or the length of the prefix that may be offered. However, if only a /64 is offered by the ISP, the homenet may be severely constrained. Attempting to use subnet prefixes longer than /64 would break SLAAC, and is thus not recommended. Using ULA prefixes internally with NPTv6 at the boundary would be possible, but is not recommended for reasons given elsewhere. Another solution would be for the internal routers to revert to bridging mode, even though this would destroy the benefits of subnetting and has serious limitations with regard to heterogeneous link layer technologies and LLNs."
Robert On 08/11/2012 4:15 PM, Mattia Rossi wrote:
I don't think bridging should be considered for homenet. Don't forget the following in the charter: "Also, link layer networking technology is poised to become more heterogeneous, as networks begin to employ both traditional Ethernet technology and link layers designed for low-powered sensor networks." In a lot of these conversations, the "lightswitch guys" (as someone called the LLN proponents) seem to get forgotten.So what happens if the "lightswitch guys" want to plug-in a router, which they have to, as they can't bridge, but there's only one exit router from one ISP which is managed and gets a /64 only? SLAAC relay? I think in this case a /64 is simply not acceptable.OK, so there are failure cases and that too needs to be stated in the architecture. Send text.So your text: The home network needs to be adaptable to such ISP policies, and thus make no assumptions about the stability of the prefix received from an ISP, or the length of the prefix that may be offered. However, if only a /64 is offered by the ISP, the homenet may be severely constrained. Attempting to use subnet prefixes longer than /64 would break SLAAC, and is thus not recommended. Using ULA prefixes internally with NPTv6 at the boundary would be possible, but is not recommended for reasons given elsewhere. The least damaging solution would be for the internal routers to revert to bridging mode, even though this would destroy the benefits of subnetting. might become: The home network needs to be adaptable to such ISP policies, and thus make no assumptions about the stability of the prefix received from an ISP, or the length of the prefix that may be offered. However, if only a /64 is offered by the ISP, the homenet may be severely constrained. Attempting to use subnet prefixes longer than /64 would break SLAAC, and is thus not recommended. Using ULA prefixes internally with NPTv6 at the boundary would be possible, but is not recommended for reasons given elsewhere. The least damaging solution would be for the internal routers to revert to bridging mode, even though this would destroy the benefits of subnetting. There are cases where neither bridging mode nor NPTv6, nor DHCPv6 are feasible, e.g. if there are LLN subnets within the homenet which require remote access. In such cases a /64 assignment from an ISP will break the home network, and should therefore be avoided. Feel free to rewrite it. Mat _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
