In message <490bc468-0c4e-48f0-9a1b-bd3f84580...@gmail.com>
RJ Atkinson writes:
> On Saturday, 22 September 2012, Joel M Halpern wrote:
> > The argument on /64 as the longest prefix is not that it is
> > magically unnatural. Rather, it is that there are a number of
> > current and evolving protocols that depend upon that /64.
> > The obvious example is that SLAAC does not work if subnets
> > are longer than /64.
> >
> > The rules in this regard are written into approved RFCs.
> > If homenet wants to change that, it really needs to go to 6man
> > with a strong case. (for point-to-point inter-router links
> > this was recently relaxed.
> >
> > At the same time, andy operator who insists on giving homes
> > a /64 is being inappropriately restrictive. Homenet should
> > say that, rather than trying to change the IPv6 architecture.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Joel
>
> +1 to all of the above.
>
> Please particularly note that SLAAC is especially likely
> to be deployed in home environments, much more likely than
> any other alternative (e.g. DHCPv6). Several widely deployed
> consumer electronic devices ONLY support IPv6 via SLAAC,
> and won't work with DHCPv6 (at present). So breaking SLAAC
> is VERY bad operationally in a home deployment at present,
> and for the foreseeable future.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ran Atkinson
Ran,
Breaking SLAAC is bad.
Consumer oriented providers handing out /64s to homenets is also bad.
But if a homenet does get nothing more than a /64 and multiple subnets
are needed, then SLAAC gets broken.
Curtis
PS- Please reply to this part off list: What "widely deployed consumer
electronic devices" do you have in mind? Any chance of firmware
upgrade or is the firmware too thoroughly baked in? Note that
just about anything running android can be upgraded in the field
and a DHCPv6 client might only need to be an app, not an upgrade.
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
homenet@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
