You guys are debating points that are long-since decided. On Oct 8, 2014, at 8:29 AM, Alexandru Petrescu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Le 08/10/2014 14:15, Pierre Pfister a écrit : >> >> Le 8 oct. 2014 à 13:58, Alexandru Petrescu >> <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >>> Hi Pierre, >>> >>> Le 08/10/2014 13:28, Pierre Pfister a écrit : >>>> Hi Alex, >>>> >>>> Reply is inlined, >>>> >>>> Le 8 oct. 2014 à 12:09, Alexandru Petrescu >>>> <[email protected]> a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Hi Pierre, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the draft update. Now I have two questions: >>>>> >>>>>> prefixes of size 64 are RECOMMENDED. >>>>> >>>>> Why is this length recommended? I think it may be because of >>>>> Ethernet? >>>> >>>> I’m not a big fan of putting 64s everywhere neither. And I >>>> strongly disagree with mandating 64 bit long prefixes. The prefix >>>> algorithm itself is agnostic on this side. >>>> >>>> Nevertheless, some parts of this document are home-network >>>> specific. Not even talking about crappy implementations, home >>>> network links should support SLAAC whenever possible. Which is >>>> the reason why using 64bit long prefixes is RECOMMENDED. >>> >>> Ah, I see. I doubt though SLAAC is 64. Maybe Ethernet is. >> >> SLAAC relies on ‘interface identifier’. Ethernet uses the EUI-64. I >> have no knowledge of other methods of generating an interface >> identifier. >> >> The why64 draft is interesting (and sad) on that front. >> >>> >>>> But smaller prefixes are better than *no prefix at all*. When >>>> there are not enough prefixes available (e.g. the ISP provides a >>>> single 64 while we have multiple links), smaller prefixes can be >>>> used (80 for instance). Which means dhcpv6 must be used. Our >>>> implementation supports it, and it works with my laptop. >>> >>> Ok. >>> >>>> But again, that should be avoided whenever possible. And ISPs >>>> MUST provided enough prefixes (IMO). >>> >>> I agree with you. >>> >>> Last time I checked Free ISP seems to provide 8 /64 prefixes to my >>> homenet: 2001:db8:0:ce10::/64 2001:db8:0:ce11::/64 ... >>> 2001:db8:0:ce17::/64 I dont think these could be aggregated into a >>> single shorter prefix, or my math is missing. >> >> That is 2001:db8:0:ce10::/61 > > Right, sorry, my math was missing. So I suppose Free ISP delegates a > single /61 to me then, not several /64s. This is a local prefix > division performed in that router. I do not necessarily agree with it, > as I could have divided it differently, or I could have announced the /61 in > RA in the first link of the homenet, etc. _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
