[134822] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jack Bates)
Tue Jan 11 14:16:02 2011
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 13:15:58 -0600
From: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
To: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0BC132DC@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 1/11/2011 1:05 PM, George Bonser wrote:
> Many of us are looking at things from today's
> perspective. Maybe each room of my house will have its own subnet with
> a low power access point and I can find which room something is in by
> the IP address it has.
Today, there are several vendors who believe the wireless part of their
cpe should be a different subnet than the ethernet. There are multiple
cases of stacked routers in homes, which requires multiple DHCPv6-PD
delegations, and the current philosophy is very wasteful (as DHCPv6
itself doesn't support variable sized requests, chained requesting, and
other options which would make it efficient for a requesting router 3
routers away from the initial DHCPv6 server).
Jack
