Ole Troan wrote: >>> There is no real reasons for ISP's to only do /64s except spite the >>> customer. The difference in costs from the RIRs for the bigger >>> address space is chump change even for developing states. All their >>> equipment will support > /64 because the big players want to support >>> that. >>> >> Actually, that's not quite right. A number of ISPs are only offering /64s >> because a significant number of IPv6-supporting home routers can't handle >> shorter prefixes (although it's getting better) - we've seen this in our >> lab. ISPs I've spoken with plan to offer shorter prefixes as home routers >> can support them. > > right. changing the homenet architecture because of buggy software seems like > putting the cart in front of the horse. > > I heard about this bug years ago, wasn't aware it still existed in current > gear. does it? > > Ole Even if it does, so what?
We're not seriously trying to make homenet backwards compatible with old routers that presume they are the only L3 device on the network? I hope that we specify homenet assuming BCP 157. Then ISPs will know that they should design their provisioning systems so that they always delegate much more than a single /64 to any homenet customer. They might even do so, as it'll probably be cheaper than handling the helpdesk calls resulting from the hacks needed to deal withinadequate prefix lengths in PD. regards RayH _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
