[email protected] wrote: >>>> On 23 Jul 2020, at 18:58, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> This is very cool. >>>> Is it written up as a specification somewhere? What is the signal that the >>>> device behind is a router, and not a PC? >>>> >>>> Why isn't homenet standardizing this? >>> >>> Cause it's architecturally "challenged"? >> >> The working group or the solution?
> Not sure how you could interpret that as pointing to the working group.
> The solution obviously.
> IPv4 "pass through" implies sharing the IPv4 address among multiple nodes.
> Creating all sorts of tricky problems.
Yeah, it's a weird situation where it basically is forced/transparent
proxying it's management port, and then letting everything else through.
Definitely a place where moving the management to IPv6 would be easier.
I think that the signaling that is observed to cause the bypass should be
written down.
That it nicely does DHCPv6-PD proxying is very nice.
I think that had this description come to the WG five years ago, we would
have thought about it deeply.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
