On 13 Mar 2013, at 20:11, Andrew McGregor <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've met one that will allocate more /48s if you ask, and have met a DHCPv6 > server implementation that would give you a new prefix if you generated a new > client ID. So, yes, they easily can exist and in at least one case do. OK, thanks, but presumably the ISP wouldn't hand out such additional prefixes indefinitely? The question is whether the arch text should say "if you don't get a big enough prefix, before entering some error state, try asking for more..."? Tim > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Tim Chown <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 11 Mar 2013, at 12:45, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mar 11, 2013, at 1:31 AM, H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> That doesn't give the option to the server, though... the client has to > >> ask for one or the other. > > > > What I would suggest is that if the client doesn't get a big enough > > allocation, it request an additional allocation, rather than that it try to > > anticipate what the server will return and prepare for the worst. > > I agree with Ran's original comments. These are reinforced in the candidate > -08 text. > > Are there IPv6 ISPs out there who would allocate an additional (say) /60 if > the CER requested an additional prefix? Would it not be simpler to state > that the prefix in use in the homenet from any ISP should be contiguous, and > sufficient in size for the homenet's requirement, as per 6177 (which > recommends "significantly more than a single /64"?) > > Tim > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
