[183710] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Subscriber Access Deployments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Sep 11 00:17:22 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <1441824693.1143196.379124105.08AB7797@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:17:16 -0700
To: Clinton Work <clinton@scripty.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Sure, but in that latter case, it is not link-local only.
It doesn=E2=80=99t matter where the /n (where n is (preferably) a member =
of {64, 126, 127}) for the point-to-point link is issued, so long as =
there is a GUA on the link.
Owen
> On Sep 9, 2015, at 11:51 , Clinton Work <clinton@scripty.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> Granted that having the CPE request both a IA_NA and IA_PD is a more
> common configuration. Some of the CPEs using only DHCPv6 PD can
> allocate a /64 out of the delegated /48 for WAN address & management. =20=
> The IPV6 traceroute is not broken with the DHCPv6 PD only =
configuration.=20
>=20
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015, at 11:15 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Sure, but this is a useless savings that comes at the cost of awkward
>> traceroute output
>> that will initially confuse your new employees and consistently =
confuse
>> your customers.
