Can this be generalized for anytime a prefix offered is not large enough to cover the number of interfaces?
On 11/8/12 3:40 PM, "Robert Cragie" <[email protected]> wrote: >Just to be clear - using a /64 will not necessarily break a home network >with a LLN. It's just that some kludge will be needed and the least >preferable IMHO for LLNs is bridging. > >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 >> > > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
