[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Nat
In message <[email protected]>, "Chuck Church" writes:
> -----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.
I have a single CPE router and 3 /64's in use. One for each of the
wireless SSID's and one for the wired network. This is the default
for homenet devices. A single /64 means you have to bridge all the
traffic.
A single /64 has never been enough and it is time to grind that
myth into the ground. ISP's that say a single /64 is enough are
clueless.
Mark
> Chuck
>
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
- Follow-Ups:
- Nat
- From: nanog at ics-il.net (Mike Hammett)
- Nat
- From: chuckchurch at gmail.com (Chuck Church)
- 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)
- Nat
- From: chuckchurch at gmail.com (Chuck Church)