> On Oct 9, 2014, at 2:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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).
Informative reference, as we don't want to create a downref over this. > > Certainly the mechanisms should support any prefix length, I agree. - Mark > 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 _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
