I'm referring to route aggregation, in case that wasn't clear. > -----Original Message----- > From: Manfredi, Albert E > Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 2:06 PM > To: 'Iljitsch van Beijnum'; IETF IPv6 Mailing List > Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RE: draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt > > > Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote > > [ ... ] > > > Then there are technical considerations for a minimum size > > assignment. Today, most end-users connect one or more hosts > in their > > site to the internet through an intermediate device that, amongst > > other functionality, functions as an IPv4 router. It's > reasonable to > > assume that this situation translates into a scenario in > IPv6 where > > users have a router on their site. This requires at least two > > subnets: one internal to the site, that hosts connect to, and one > > used between the user's and ISP's routers. However, there is no > > requirement that these two subnet prefixes (which should be /64 as > > per relevant specifications such as RFC 3513) come from a single > > shorter prefix assigned to the user. This means that the > minimum for > > most users would be a /63 or two /64s. > > On this point, unless you're speaking of NATs (which I though > would be discouraged with v6), doesn't it make a lot of sense > to use the same address prefix to reach the subnet outside > and inside the home router? > > Bert >
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
