Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
[ ... ] > Then there are technical considerations for a minimum size > assignment. Today, most end-users connect one or more hosts in their > site to the internet through an intermediate device that, amongst > other functionality, functions as an IPv4 router. It's reasonable to > assume that this situation translates into a scenario in IPv6 where > users have a router on their site. This requires at least two > subnets: one internal to the site, that hosts connect to, and one > used between the user's and ISP's routers. However, there is no > requirement that these two subnet prefixes (which should be /64 as > per relevant specifications such as RFC 3513) come from a single > shorter prefix assigned to the user. This means that the minimum for > most users would be a /63 or two /64s. On this point, unless you're speaking of NATs (which I though would be discouraged with v6), doesn't it make a lot of sense to use the same address prefix to reach the subnet outside and inside the home router? Bert -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
