On Oct 23, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote: > Amen! > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> There are some folks (like me) who advocate a DHCPv6 that can convey >> a default gateway AND the ability to turn off RA's entirely. That >> is make it work like IPv4. >> >> > I'd also love to turn off stateless autoconfig altogether and not be coerced > to assign /64s to single LANs, which I am becoming convinced that it was a > poor decision on the IETFs part. > Nah... The /64 thing is fine. If they hadn't done that, we likely would have only a 64-bit address space total. 64-bit lans with 64-bit routing identifiers are fine.
What would be nice would be if we changed the semantics a bit and made it 16+48+64 where the first 16 of the dest+source could be re-assembled into the destination ASN for the packet and the remaining 48 identified a particular subnet globally with 64 for the host. Unfortunately, that ship has probably sailed. > Stateless autoconfig works very well, It would be just perfect if the > network boundary was configurable (like say /64 if you really want it, or > /80 - /96 for the rest of us) > There really is no need for anything smaller than /64. What, exactly, do you think you gain from a smaller netmask? Owen
