Le 2013-03-05 23:03, STARK, BARBARA H a écrit :
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 with 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 anything 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 would break) if I went with any of
these choices.
FWIW, I disagree with your proposal, and agree entirely with the current
text.
Imagine we're in a world where homenet-compliant routers are commonly
available in the shops. They're being installed by ISPs that control the
CPE. There's a "homenet ready program" that certifies routers and puts
stickers on them. This WG has done a good job, and the industry has
adopted homenet. I believe this is what we're all aiming for, or should be.
Now, in that world, an ISP would be crazy to give a single /64 to its
subscribers. They would instantly receive tons of support calls saying
that "the router doesn't work". The ISP would get a bad reputation and
would lose customers. All the incentives would be aligned to make proper
prefix delegation not only possible, but the only logical choice. So
ISPs would just give larger prefixes, like everyone wants them to.
That is the world I want to live in.
Current 6rd deployments that hand out /64s are temporary. And I believe
they exist only because of lack of clue, given the early state of IPv6
deployment at those well-intentioned ISPs. We have to build for the future.
Simon
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
