On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Roberta Maglione (robmgl) <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Perhaps if the case is as in your example (Framed-IPv6-Prefix is > contained by Delegated-IPv6-Prefix, but not equal) >then using the > Framed-IPv6-Prefix for OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE makes some sense? > > > > Maybe it could theoretically make sense but is this a common deployment > model? Are there any Service Providers that use or plan to use this model? > Hello, I wonder how common it is for providers to enumerate the WAN with a global prefix. If one wants to enumerate the WAN with a global prefix one should unavoidably have to find a /64 additionally to the /56 (or whatever is allocated) per customer. Without PD_EXCLUDE, the framed /64 must be foreign to the delegated /56, which means different prefix pools, double the size of the routing table in your delegating router, etc. Basically the "3 - Problem Background" from rfc6603 says it much better than me. In our setup (moderate size provider with PPP links over DSL enumerated with NDRA and then DHCPv6-PD), we use both Framed-IPv6-Prefix (global) and Delegated-IPv6-Prefix (also global) to tell the delegating router what to give out. Obviously these two prefixes come from different pools of global prefixes, foreign to each other. I really don't know how common it is, but if instead of maintaining two separate prefix pools for framed and delegated we could just use a single pool of /56 prefixes where the framed /64 comes from inside the corresponding /56 for each customer, that would be indeed great. -- Athanasios Douitsis
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
