[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Nat

Subject: Nat
From: chuckchurch at gmail.com (Chuck Church)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:27:33 -0500
In-reply-to: <CAEmG1=oX3uf4OGg586SiBJxQDZoNurNicx-K0Ouaw0MESwwnNQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]> <D29747F0.11F8D4%[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CAAbPayKVqf7r=77Jjks8WJOgm5eqFpD4OqUyTopKBPa2TRvQNA@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <m24mfhj2d1.wl%[email protected]> <CAEmG1=oX3uf4OGg586SiBJxQDZoNurNicx-K0Ouaw0MESwwnNQ@mail.gmail.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Petach
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 1:59 PM
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog at nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Nat

>I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around to allowing feature parity between IPv4 and IPv6 when it comes to DHCP.  

And that recent thread on prefix delegation doesn't really leave a good taste in one's mouth about how to delegate a /56 or a /48 to a CPE, and get that/those prefix(s) in your (ISP) routing tables.  Given that 99.999% of home users would be fine with a delegation of a single /64 and a single subnet I'm tempted to do that for now and let the DHCP-PD ink dry for a while so CPE support can follow up.

Chuck

Follow-Ups:
- Nat
  - From: marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews)
- Nat
  - From: Lee at asgard.org (Lee Howard)

References:
- Nat
  - From: ahmed.dalaali at hrins.net (Ahmed Munaf)
- Nat
  - From: Jason_Livingood at cable.comcast.com (Livingood, Jason)
- Nat
  - From: marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews)
- Nat
  - From: charles.lists at camonson.com (Charles Monson)
- Nat
  - From: marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews)
- Nat
  - From: randy at psg.com (Randy Bush)
- Nat
  - From: mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach)

Prev by Date: Nat
Next by Date: failover via comcast tunnel?
Previous by thread: Nat
Next by thread: Nat
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread