On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Hemant Singh (shemant) <shem...@cisco.com> wrote: > CableLabs will not do so. Also as I have said in the past to this mailer > that the reason ND Proxy was defeated because an RA Proxy would also be > needed with a single /64. A Standards Track RFC does not exist for RA > Proxy. Also, it’s not for lack of trying – there are issues with ND Proxy > or a RA Proxy that could not be solved till now. See emails Erik Nordmark > sent to 6man on ND Proxy in the past year or two. > > > > Also, why ask the question “what if a cellphone operator allocated a /64 to > a phone”. I already said, vendors have agreed to use the RFC 3633 PD. >
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-eps-08#section-5.3 Expect to see ND Proxy from mobile networks. I am not saying it is good or bad for HomeNet, i am just saying the mobile phones will do this... it is homenet's decision how to use it as access to the mobile network and Internet Cameron > > > Cheers, > > > > Hemant > > > > From: homenet-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of james woodyatt > Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 1:48 PM > To: homenet@ietf.org Group > > Subject: Re: [homenet] routing requirements > > > > On Oct 24, 2011, at 10:22 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote: > > > > If a cell phone operator gives you a single /64, what do you propose to do? > > > > If a certain CableLabs MSO gives each of its several tens of millions of > Internet users in North America only a single /64, what do we propose to do? > > > > -- > > james woodyatt <j...@apple.com> > > member of technical staff, core os networking > > > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
