In message <[email protected]>, james woodyatt wri tes: > p3. All this pain can be traded away for the reasonably well-understood pain > of NAT66 and a single ULA prefix with a constant 16-bit subnet identifier spa > ce, where collisions will be rare and stateless prefix autoconfiguration will > settle quickly basically every time. I personally don't think that's a good > trade, but if routed home networks are ever to become the normal setup, then > I'm very skeptical that my opinion will turn out to be the majority one.
NAT66 assumes a /48 or else you don't have enough bits to fix the checksums. > I think if we want to avoid the temptation of subscribers to deploy NAT66 to > preserve the stability of their 16-bit subnet identifier space in the face of > service providers "enhancing their choices" with a variety of plans with var > ying policies for prefix delegation, then we have to do it with a stateful su > bnet manager in the network, near the border gateways. > > > -- > james woodyatt <[email protected]> > core os networking > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: [email protected] _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
