Robert
On 13/11/2012 8:24 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 12/11/2012 17:33, Mark Townsley wrote:Nice to see a constructive thread with suggested text for the editors of the homenet arch, thank you. I'm concerned with any "issue a warning" type suggestions though. We are working hard to develop automatic configuration that assumes there is no operator involved here. If there is no operator to configure our protocols, there is no operator to issue a warning to either. If the homenet runs out of /64s to hand out, and we recommend not to route /128s, bridge, NPTv6, etc... then the final option is, simply, "no IPv6" for that given link. Falling back to the user to try and interpret a cryptic message about IPv6 prefixes is simply not a realistic option for the protocols we are working on here.Which is a FAIL if there are any v6-only devices around. Ultimately I don't see how you can avoid some kind of warning to the user, even if it's the equivalent of the beeping from a smoke detector whose battery is fading. Brian
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
