[131413] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 fc00::/7 ??? Unique local addresses
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Sun Oct 24 09:49:08 2010
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 06:48:57 -0700
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <9F1872BB-F736-4914-B201-60671C821620@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message written on Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 05:23:14PM -0700, Owen DeLong =
wrote:
> On Oct 23, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org> wrote:
> >> There are some folks (like me) who advocate a DHCPv6 that can convey
> >> a default gateway AND the ability to turn off RA's entirely. That
> >> is make it work like IPv4.
> >>=20
> > I'd also love to turn off stateless autoconfig altogether and not be co=
erced
> > to assign /64s to single LANs, which I am becoming convinced that it wa=
s a
> > poor decision on the IETFs part.
> >=20
> Nah... The /64 thing is fine. If they hadn't done that, we likely would h=
ave only
> a 64-bit address space total. 64-bit lans with 64-bit routing identifier=
s are
> fine.
I think the 64-bit boundry is fine (from a DHCP perspective). I
do think if we're going to update the DHCP spec it should support
a netmask option, just because leaving it out is short sighted to
the future, but I would use it with /64's today.
> There really is no need for anything smaller than /64. What, exactly, do=
you
> think you gain from a smaller netmask?
There is a slippery slope here, if users make do with smaller
providers may give out smaller blocks, and so on.
That said, if a provider does hand out a /64, I would very much
like technology to make 16 bits of subnet + 48 bits of host, with
EUI-48 used directly for autoconf as an option. Particularly when
we talk about 6rd and other things that use a lot of space this
option would be huge. Users would still get 16 bits of subnet, and
host space so big they could never fill it.
--=20
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
--y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (FreeBSD)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=TRNy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6--
