[111376] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (TJ)
Wed Feb 4 21:08:05 2009
From: "TJ" <trejrco@gmail.com>
To: "'NANOG list'" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <498A40C1.8060702@internode.com.au>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 21:04:27 -0500
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
>My FEAR is that people ("customers") are going to start assuming that =
v6
>means their own static allocation (quite a number are assuming this).
>This means that I have a problem with routing table size etc if I have =
to
>implement that.
Then work with them to break them of this dis-illusion. =20
>I'm still not convinced though that, given DHCPv6 is going to be a =
reality
>for DNS assignment etc, that stateless autoconfig is needed and thus =
/64
>doesn't have to be the smallest we assign.
Yes and no. You sound like you are of the belief that SLAAC is bad / =
deficient - while it may not be perfect, some are big fans of its ease =
of use ATLEAST in certain deployment models.
