On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com<mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: You are assuming that all of the subordinate routers will act as DHCP relays rather than doing PD. That is certainly one possible solution, but, not necessarily ideal in all cases. In cases where the subordinate routers should receive delegations and perform their own PD for their subordinate routers, having a larger bit field can be useful for greater flexibility.
No, there is no use case where this is better than doing the delegations from the router that received the initial delegation (since we're apparently just arguing by vigorous assertion). Thus, providing 16 bits to the end site is, IMHO, worth while. And hence, this conclusion is not supported. You are welcome, of course, to contradict me by stating such a use case, but bear in mind that when you delegate prefixes for further sub-delegation, topology changes in the homenet become impossible. So your use case for doing this would have to enable some pretty awesome functionality before it would be worth doing. Also make sure you think about how it would work during a renumbering event, with sub-delegations and sub-sub-delegations all having different lifetimes. (I've got nothing against delegating /48's to the home, but the reason we did that was to maintain flexibility, not because we really expect a typical homenet to have 65,536 subnets. At least for most reasonable values of "we.")
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
