On Jun 2, 2013, at 6:14 PM, Ted Lemon <ted.le...@nominum.com> wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> We can agree to disagree. > > Do you want to fly in an airplane designed by someone who agrees to disagree > with you on whether heavy objects fall faster in a vacuum? Agreeing to > disagree on matters of opinion is fine, but we are discussing matters of fact. > Your prior statement: > 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). Is your opinion. I disagree with your opinion and have a different opinion. It is my opinion that there are use cases. >> One example that comes to mind is if I want greater control and I want my >> most capable router with the greatest configuration flexibility to be in >> charge of the addressing scheme, but, it is not the router that interfaces >> with my ISP. > > In this case, your "edge" router is the router you attach to your ISP router; > your ISP router consumes one /64, and your edge router has 65,534 left. Got > anything else? > My edge router is going to be the one that receives the PD delegation from the ISP. The router that I want to manage most of the delegations is not that router. In this case, I want my edge router to delegate to said other router rather than act as the central PD authority within my network. It doesn't matter how many prefixes it does or does not use, that differs from what you proposed and is a valid use case where your proposal is not desirable. Owen
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
