Teemu, On 2008-10-27 19:50, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi Joseph, > > Thank you for your responses, comment inline > >> As for your question, I would say that it depends on implementations. >> AFAIK, there are already several opensources like ISC DHCP >> which supports IA_NA(maybe IA_TA) as well as IA_PD. And >> Windows 2008 server also does. Even though details of >> implementations may be different, site prefixes are derived >>from delegated prefixes and the LAN interface is configured >> with addresses from the site prefixes as pre-configured >> policy. Then, site prefixes are advertised through following >> RA messages from the LAN interface and hosts have addresses >> configured via SLAAC. However, I am not sure that ND proxy has >> been deployed well. > > Actually I was more concerned on operator policies: if operator is > running DHCPv6, will it be their policy decision whether or not to allow > hosts to request for prefixes as well? > > Consider cellular host case: > - host implements e.g. ND proxy and DHCPv6 PD for WAN connection sharing > - host attaches to a network where only DHCPv6 happens to be used > - host gets single /128 IPv6 address from DHCPv6 > - host tries to get some prefixes for its LAN interface with DHCPv6 PD, > but network's policy rejects the prefix request > > Now what can host do? Tell user that the currently attached network does > not allow network connection sharing feature?
Yes. The "host" in this case is actually behaving as a CPE, and it can report the fact that it's only able to get one address. The bug here is that the ISP is handing out a /128 instead of a /48, /56 or /64. That's a business issue, and the user needs to find a more reasonable ISP. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
