>>>>> "Teco" == Teco Boot <t...@inf-net.nl> writes:
Mattia> So what happens if the "lightswitch guys" want to plug-in a
Mattia> router, which they have to, as they can't bridge, but
Mattia> there's only one exit router from one ISP which is managed
Mattia> and gets a /64 only? SLAAC relay? I think in this case a
Mattia> /64 is simply not acceptable.
>>> The lights work in the home (because routing of ULA works fine)
>>> Possibly, you can't control them from outside the home. So, ISP
>>> that gives out /56 has an obvious way to demonstrate why they
>>> suck less than /64-only ISP.
>> This is exactly the message that should be conveyed by the draft
>>> It is not clear that all LLNs will even want globally routable
>>> address space. Some will. Some won't know what to do with it.
>> I agree on that. That's why I took the case where they want
>> globally routable addresses to remote control each single light
>> (or sensor - which might sound more plausible to some folks). If
>> the lights just need to communicate within the homenet, ULA's do
>> the job. And as you say, they might even be the better solution.
Teco> I expect a controller, with global address. This enables
Teco> control from outside. Other solution: VPN for back to my home.
In a simple home, the controller is on the one LAN which got the /64,
and so that side of it is accessible anyway.
--
Michael Richardson
-on the road-
pgpVxkazNhUhR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
