Thanks for the review, late is still welcome. As for IPv4, as you alluded to, we are chartered to develop solutions that work dual-stack where we can, as long as we are not making harmful concessions to the v6 design due to v4 consideration.
- Mark (Thumbtyped) > On Sep 23, 2014, at 11:41 PM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Late, but: > > I have read draft-pfister-homenet-prefix-assignment. Adopt it. > I thought I read it before, but maybe not. It all seems familiar, but what's > with all the IPv4 stuff? I guess we are doing an IPv4 thing, because we can, > and it's useful to be able to turn off detect that have multiple potential > DHCPv4 servers, and turn them off if we can. > > I think that we should remove: >> If the delegated prefix is too small >> given the size of the network, prefixes of arbitrary lengths may >> be used. > > and stick to 64-bit for all the why-64 reasons. Let's not talk about any > other options. This document also seems to interoperate with (CableLabs) > HIP. > > draft-mglt-homenet-front-end-naming-delegation > draft-mglt-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options > > I have read previous versions of these documents, and upon looking again, I > see lots of shiny new text, and I like it all. While there are many people > who are very scared of having home devices in DNS, and many are worried that > they will be forced somehow to do so, I don't think any such comments matter. > This is, like almost all protocols the IETF creates, optional to enable. > Please adopt these documents. > > -- > ] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [ > ] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [ > ] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails > [ > > > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
