On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 2013, at 1:51 AM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Jun 2, 2013, at 1:22 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: >>> {ISP Connection} -> Router -> multiple segments each of which contains one >>> or more routers, some of which have multiple segments which contain >>> additional routers. >>> All of the routers below the second tier are downstream from the routers at >>> the second tier which are downstream from the first tier router. >> >> This is trivially solved with PD at the PE router that gets the delegation >> from the ISP. I thought you were talking about a multi-homed topology. >> Also trivially solved, but might involve two edge routers each with their >> own set of prefixes to delegate. > > You are assuming that all of the subordinate routers will act as DHCP relays > rather than doing PD. > > That is certainly one possible solution, but, not necessarily ideal in all > cases. > > In cases where the subordinate routers should receive delegations and perform > their own PD for their subordinate routers, having a larger bit field can be > useful for greater flexibility. Under what circumstances would this deployment model be useful? - Ralph > > Thus, providing 16 bits to the end site is, IMHO, worth while. > > Owen > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
