Op 14 nov. 2012, om 16:07 heeft Ted Lemon het volgende geschreven: > On Nov 14, 2012, at 3:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 14/11/2012 02:34, Randy Turner wrote: >>> I was thinking that, in an effort to reduce scope to something we can deal >>> with for now, that a /64 would be big enough >> >> It simply isn't, because it doesn't allow subnetting in the home/car/small >> office or whatever. > > I don't see the point in working on the /64 case—if that's all we're trying > to accomplish, we've already accomplished it. The interesting work Homenet > is doing is in fact trying to solve the prefix distribution and automatic > setup problem. It's true that this is a hard problem. It's also true that > if we don't specify a solution, people will attempt to solve it in their own > ways. And if they do that, we will wind up in the situation that Jim found > himself in with his broken box with its own built-in DHCP server. > > BTW, a little more on that topic: the reason that two DHCP servers on the > same wire broke Jim's network in a flaky way is that IPv4 doesn't handle the > multi-homing case. IPv6 deliberately places the multi-homing case in-scope. > This creates a bit of a problem for legacy apps that do not support > multi-homing, but it also creates the winning situation that if one device is > advertising a provisioning domain that doesn't work, applications that do > correctly handle multi-homing will simply use a different provisioning domain.
Yes, this is the use case I'm interested in. I don't think it is to hard to get there, as long as we don't try to hide the more complex network topology and DHCP facilities from hosts. We must be backward compatible, but should not block enhancements. Teco > > _______________________________________________ > 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
