Mark Smith a écrit :
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:08:18 +0100 Alexandru Petrescu
<alexandru.petre...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Smith a écrit :
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:16:33 +0100 Alexandru Petrescu
<alexandru.petre...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Smith a écrit :
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:03:54 +0100 Alexandru Petrescu
<alexandru.petre...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dunn, Jeffrey H. a écrit :
Alex,
<snip>
Well somewhere here there's a paradox. An operator gives me a /64
telling me it's more than I'd ever need. Which is true, it could
accommodate 2^64 nodes.
Well, if you have an alernative providers that will give you /48s (or
maybe /56s - I don't really like them, because now there's two
allocation sizes instead of the single /48 size, but they're still
far better than being given a single /64), give them your business
instead. The single /64 operator is being excessively and
unnecessarily conservative with IPv6 address space.
For clarification, the ADSL operator I'm mentioning is offering actually
less than /64 to the box (40-something or so IIRC). But it only sends
/64 to the interface towards the user Ethernet cable. And it does not
implement DHCPv6 PD.
The /64 aspect of SLAAC and Ethernet is so popular and widely known that
many think that's all that's needed. Were that /64 SLAAC Ethernet limit
be more vague, like any figure between 48 and 64, then the belief of /64
is all that's needed for EThernet wouldn't have become so mainstream.
You shouldn't have to work around their unnecessary IPv6 address
space constraints, and neither should equipment vendors or the IETF.
Well far from me the intention to persuade neither IETF nor equipment
vendors nor operators.
It's a remark about documents and their interpretations.
Alex
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
