Well, being a residential CPE vendor, I can confirm some of our customers deploy /64 only to the CPE. Not recommended by us, but being a managed CPE, it's the customer making the final decision on this.
Regs Carl -----Original Message----- From: homenet-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:homenet-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mikael Abrahamsson Sent: woensdag 7 november 2012 19:07 To: Andrew McGregor Cc: homenet@ietf.org Group; Ted Lemon; Ralph Droms Subject: Re: [homenet] regarding recursive DHCPv6-PD On Wed, 7 Nov 2012, Andrew McGregor wrote: > But that's single-delegating-router, not recursive. The problem with > recursive is figuring out what prefix length a sub-delegating router > is going to ask for from its upstream. For a single-delegating-router > setup, you just ask for either a bunch of /64s or something that just > contains enough of those to cover all your downstream interfaces. In > a recursive situation, you don't know what you will need further > downstream. For me, I've always taken for granted that the ISP CPE gets a /56 or something, and then it's fine to subdelegate /64s out of that as needed, and subdelegating routers request a /64 at a time as needed, and relay for sub-sub-delegating routers (as OP suggested). The hard part is to get the source based routing to work so that packets flowing upstream exit via the correct ISP CPE (if the home is multihomed to multiple ISPs) depending on what source address they have, so as to avoid getting dropped by uRPF filters. I'm surprised the subnet allocation size is still being discussed, I haven't followed the working group as closely as I should, but I hope we can get through this quickly. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se _______________________________________________ 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
