otr...@employees.org wrote:
>>>> On 23 Jul 2020, at 18:58, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is very cool.
>>>> Is it written up as a specification somewhere? What is the signal
that the
>>>> device behind is a router, and not a PC?
>>>>
>>>> Why isn't homenet standardizing this?
>>>
>>> Cause it's architecturally "challenged"?
>>
>> The working group or the solution?
> Not sure how you could interpret that as pointing to the working group.
> The solution obviously.
> IPv4 "pass through" implies sharing the IPv4 address among multiple nodes.
> Creating all sorts of tricky problems.
Yeah, it's a weird situation where it basically is forced/transparent
proxying it's management port, and then letting everything else through.
Definitely a place where moving the management to IPv6 would be easier.
I think that the signaling that is observed to cause the bypass should be
written down.
That it nicely does DHCPv6-PD proxying is very nice.
I think that had this description come to the WG five years ago, we would
have thought about it deeply.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
