Re: DHCPv6 support for /127s, for ISP subscriber PPP/PPPoE p2p links (Re: router vs. host discussion in 6man today for the /127 draft)

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Mark Smith i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org wrote: I'm happy with using /64s for PPPoE links. However, if the /127 draft is accepted, then I'd want to be able to take advantage of them on PPP/PPPoE sessions - if there is an approved mechanism

Re: DHCPv6 support for /127s, for ISP subscriber PPP/PPPoE p2p links (Re: router vs. host discussion in 6man today for the /127 draft)

Hi Lorenzo, On Fri, 2 Apr 2010 17:25:53 -0700 Lorenzo Colitti lore...@google.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Mark Smith i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org wrote: I'm happy with using /64s for PPPoE links. However, if the /127 draft is accepted, then I'd want

Re: DHCPv6 support for /127s, for ISP subscriber PPP/PPPoE p2p links (Re: router vs. host discussion in 6man today for the /127 draft)

On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:34:30 -0500 Frank Bulk - iName.com frnk...@iname.com wrote: Did you get assigned a /48 that you feel that you are address constrained? No. The whole point of IPv6 is plentiful addresses. At this time I'm planning to assign a /64 per PPPoE link, and if they want it,

DHCPv6 support for /127s, for ISP subscriber PPP/PPPoE p2p links (Re: router vs. host discussion in 6man today for the /127 draft)

Hi, The subject pretty much says it. It's extremely wasteful to be allocating a /64 per subscriber PPP/PPPoE session. An alternative model is lay a virtual /64 over the top of the 100s or 1000s of PPP/PPPoE sessions, and have the subscriber's PPP IID used to autoconf the LL and global