[135484] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 - real vs theoretical problems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Tue Jan 25 23:22:11 2011
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 20:21:59 -0800
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D2CAC6E.5070108@brightok.net>
Cc: nanog <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 1/11/11 11:15 AM, Jack Bates wrote:
>
>
> 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).
There are also devices (even consumer ones) that support seperate ssids
for guests and other users with different security policy for each as
well as layer-3 seperation. in my direct experience with the d-link it
doesn't (yet) route v6 to the guest network.
>
> Jack
>
