[114291] in North American Network Operators' Group
DHCPv6 PD chains vs bridging
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David W. Hankins)
Tue May 5 16:38:10 2009
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 13:38:17 -0700
From: "David W. Hankins" <David_Hankins@isc.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4A009FEC.7080004@telcodata.us>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--5/uDoXvLw7AC5HRs
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 04:22:04PM -0400, Paul Timmins wrote:
> Sorry for the top post, but as a crazy thought here, why not throw out an=
=20
> RA, and if answered, go into transparent bridge mode? Let the sophisticat=
ed=20
> users who want routed behavior override it manually.
Customer premise gear has a 'front side' and a 'back side', and it is
already well ingrained behaviour for 'back-to-back port chaining' to
create a single large bridged network in the home. What is the
customer's anticipated result from front-to-back chaining?
That seems much more reliable a hint to me than conditional behaviour.
DHCPv6 PD is applicable to the ISP customer premise. DHCPv6 PD
'chaining' however is probably only applicable in some promised future
where there are alternative home network medias to Ethernet, or to the
Enterprise where the boundaries drawn in broadcast domains are
administrative in nature and not technical (but still, all automated).
--=20
David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
--5/uDoXvLw7AC5HRs
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkoAo7gACgkQcXeLeWu2vmqooQCgp4PDMMtVe2xNpJ2F6Bl2v/9l
RW4An3ZG+ew9rz13/dOIC43k6kMhoiO+
=g7z0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--5/uDoXvLw7AC5HRs--
