In message <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E6113025C818@GAALPA1MSGUSR9L.ITServices .sbc.com>, "STARK, BARBARA H" writes: > This section of the homenet architecture draft has the following paragraph: > > The home network needs to be adaptable to ISP prefix allocation > 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 or even unable to function. As stated > above, attempting to use internal subnet prefixes longer than /64 > would break SLAAC, and is thus not recommended. Using ULA prefixes > internally with NPTv6 at the boundary is not recommended for reasons > given elsewhere. Reverting to bridging would destroy subnetting, > breaks multicast if bridged onto 802.11 wireless networks and has > serious limitations with regard to heterogeneous link layer > technologies and LLNs. For those reasons it is recommended that > DHCP-PD or OSPFv3 capable routers have the ability to issue a warning > upon receipt of a /64 if required to assign further prefixes within > the home network. Though some consideration needs to be given to how > that should be presented to a typical home user. > > <hat = "consumer"> I agree with the first 3 sentences. However, I disagree wi > th the recommendation for the case where the delegated subnet is insufficient > to meet the needs of the home network. This paragraph recommends that a DHCP > -PD or OSPFv3 capable router issue a warning and recommends against doing any > thing else. As a home user who currently gets a /64 (via 6rd) from my ISP, I > find this recommendation insufficient. I would prefer if a (internal) router > that is not given a /64 provided me with a "warning" that offered options for > alternate ways to configure the router. These options might include bridging > , NPTv6, or even NAT66, and I would be told what I would be giving up (what w > ould break) if I went with any of these choices. But I want choices from that > router. Choices of "move to a different house where you can get service from > a different ISP", "give up", or "complain" are not real choices. "Switch ISP > s" is also not a choice, because there is no other ISP offering se > rvice to my home that can provide the bandwidth my family wants. And whateve > r someone else's reasons are for not wanting to use one of these configuratio > ns, those reasons may not apply to me. For example, I take great pleasure in > breaking end-to-end connectivity to certain devices inside my home network. I > don't mind if I don't have subnetting. I've seen multicast with Wi-Fi links > work great where snooping is implemented on the link. I want the choice to be > mine.
If your ISP only supplies a /64 then switch ISP. Truly this is the only way to stop such stupidity. If they only supply a /64 via 6rd run away from them because they are incompentent. It is not rocket science to run multiple 6rd domains. IPv6 prefixes are not scarse. They are less than $0.03/annum per /48 to ISPs from RIRs. > Barbara > _______________________________________________ > 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
