On 3.6.2014, at 3.10, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > Markus Stenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > ` > - implemented (and also somewhat tested) 6rd, dslite, map, lw4o6 >> transition mechanisms > I assume that this is all WAN/uplink interface things. > (vs ways to get IPv6 through IPv4 only internal routers…)
Yes.. Internal connectivity is assumed to be dual stack, IPv4 NAT-less (among HNCP-enabled routers; obviously the prefix itself is RFC1918 and NATted for upstream access) and legacy RFC7084 inner routers will have nested IPv4 NAT and get IPv6 PD. from HNCP-enabled routers We also test IPv6-only case to be thorough in our automated system test suite, but practically I think that’s some time off; in Finland, there’s only one ISP who even offers residential users IPv6 ;-) >> And at some point it would be nice to have also: >> - multicast (sitelocal) >> - UPnP (IGD perhaps via proxy, rest via multicast and/or proxy) > >> However, this brings to my mind a thing I’ve been meaning to ask the >> list for a while now. > >> What is the take on hncp-00 draft format? Should the strictly optional > > Are you asking specifically about the TLV format, rather than > contents/semantics? Well, bit of both; how limited should the draft be in scope? As it is, it contains quite a lot of stuff and odds are not many will actually implement all of those extra bits in any case. The original reasoning was mostly to keep # of drafts low, but (based on feedback) at expense of some lack of coherence. Cheers, -Markus _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
