Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I would not like to see IPv6 NAPT, but I see that as a real risk if
network is using DHCPv6 for allocating hosts just /128 addresses but at
the same time is not willing to delegate prefixes on demand.
Agreed.
The sad part is that it's probably inevitable given the
Hi Peter,
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:03:44 -0700
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I would not like to see IPv6 NAPT, but I see that as a real risk if
network is using DHCPv6 for allocating hosts just /128 addresses but at
the same time is not willing to
On 2008-10-31 21:09, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:31:27 +1300, Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well I'm not completely certain whether involving users here would
provide very good experience,
I see your argument, but failing silently doesn't seem like a
good
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 09:59:03 +1300, Brian E Carpenter
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Failing silently or loudly are no options. You cannot blame the operator
if you expect him to subsidized your device sale. You cannot fail if
your
competitor just works by using NAPT66.
Agreed, but you can warn
Pardon my ignorance. Is there a concrete case of this in some access
network standard?
(I heard some rumors thereabout)
I have heard rumors as well that were in favor of using DHCPv6 for address
allocation also in some cellular accesses.
By my understanding this is not yet so concrete
