STARK, BARBARA H wrote: > 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. 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 ISPs" 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 whatever someone else's reasons are for not wanting to use one of these configurations, 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. > > Barbara > All IMVHO
Trying to make homenet work with a single /64 or insufficient /64s to number every subnet uniquely, is unnecessary and a waste of cycles in this WG. The homenet WG charter is to cover "multiple routers" using "existing protocols". Also, defining predictable fallback behavior in the presence of multiple devices running autoconfig is doomed to failure. Besides, people already know how to bridge, how to do NAPT, and how to do 6204 bis. I do not think that the current text excludes any of the actions Barbara wants, provided the user accepts that they are no longer running a homenet. Maybe we could make that clearer. So perhaps add after the 1st sentence in the quoted paragraph. "The homenet architecture is designed to work well when sufficient /64 prefixes are availableto uniquely number subnets using SLAAC." And at the end of the paragraph: "A homenet device may then revert to one of various fall back modes, given various limitations on functionality. These fall back modes may be acceptable to the user in certain limited circumstances, but it should be very clear that the device is no longer functioning as defined by the homenet architecture." regards, RayH _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
