Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions

2017-03-29 Thread Jan Zorz - Go6
On 29/03/2017 14:44, Philip Homburg wrote: Hi Jan, In your letter dated Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:14:59 +0200 you wrote: You would be surprised how many residential customers still have CPE in bridge mode and are connecting to PPPoE service using Windows (or any other OS) PC using a PPPoE dialer,

Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions

2017-03-29 Thread Jan Zorz - Go6
On 29/03/2017 09:02, Gert Doering wrote: Hi, On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 08:14:59AM +0200, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote: For a PPPoE link these issues are trivially solved to leaving the link unnumbered. Again, for those, using a PPPoE dialer that would not work. If you are 100% sure that nobody in your

Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions

2017-03-29 Thread Philip Homburg
In your letter dated Wed, 29 Mar 2017 15:37:45 +0200 you wrote: >Yes, Telekom Slovenije still runs PPPoE over their fiber network. I was >making fun of that 9 years ago ( >http://blog.ipspace.net/2008/10/internet-access-russian-dolls.html) and not >much changed in the meantime. Hooking up CPEs to

Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions

2017-03-29 Thread Ivan Pepelnjak
As sad I am to write this, here's the real-life story... >You would be surprised how many residential customers still have CPE in > >bridge mode and are connecting to PPPoE service using Windows (or any > >other OS) PC using a PPPoE dialer, some of them even using multiple > >parallel PPPoE

Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions

2017-03-29 Thread Philip Homburg
Hi Jan, In your letter dated Wed, 29 Mar 2017 08:14:59 +0200 you wrote: >You would be surprised how many residential customers still have CPE in >bridge mode and are connecting to PPPoE service using Windows (or any >other OS) PC using a PPPoE dialer, some of them even using multiple >parallel

Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions

2017-03-29 Thread Gert Doering
Hi, On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 08:14:59AM +0200, Jan Zorz - Go6 wrote: > > For a PPPoE link these issues are trivially solved to leaving the link > > unnumbered. > > Again, for those, using a PPPoE dialer that would not work. If you are > 100% sure that nobody in your network is connecting using a

Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 prefix delegation BCOP document available for comments and suggestions

2017-03-29 Thread Jan Zorz - Go6
On 28/03/2017 13:28, Philip Homburg wrote: Hi Jan, It's not clear to me why in Section 3.1.5, a global /64 prefix is recommended for PPPoE connections. Sections 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 talk about directly connecting hosts without any kind of CPE. As far I know, the last time that was in fashion for