On 09/10/2014 03:21, Tim Chown wrote:
> On 8 Oct 2014, at 14:14, Pierre Pfister <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Why should we mandate homenet implementations to *brake* in situations where
>> they could work fine ? Why should we voluntarily prevent a link from being
>> configured if we actually can configure it ?
>>
>> If MUSTs are the solution, then I would rather see a ‘ISP MUST provide a /56
>> to customers’ than ‘Homenet MUST brake when the provided prefix is not big
>> enough’.
>
> But this is what the homenet arch text says in Section 3.4.1:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-arch-17#section-3.4.1
>
> i.e. don’t go longer than /64, and ISPs should provide enough prefixes.
>
> The why64 text is very relevant here.
And could be added as a reference. It's already in IESG Evaluation
(with one open issue that was just flagged).
Certainly the mechanisms should support any prefix length, but
the reality remains that only /64 subnets work properly in all
circumstances today.
Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
