Am 08.11.2012 20:04, schrieb Michael Richardson:
"Mattia" == Mattia Rossi <[email protected]> writes:
>> In a lot of these conversations, the "lightswitch guys" (as
>> someone called the LLN proponents) seem to get forgotten.
Mattia> So what happens if the "lightswitch guys" want to plug-in a
Mattia> router, which they have to, as they can't bridge, but
Mattia> there's only one exit router from one ISP which is managed
Mattia> and gets a /64 only? SLAAC relay? I think in this case a
Mattia> /64 is simply not acceptable.
The lights work in the home (because routing of ULA works fine)
Possibly, you can't control them from outside the home. So, ISP that
gives out /56 has an obvious way to demonstrate why they suck less than
/64-only ISP.
This is exactly the message that should be conveyed by the draft
It is not clear that all LLNs will even want globally routable address
space. Some will. Some won't know what to do with it.
I agree on that. That's why I took the case where they want globally
routable addresses to remote control each single light (or sensor -
which might sound more plausible to some folks). If the lights just need
to communicate within the homenet, ULA's do the job. And as you say,
they might even be the better solution.
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
