[186437] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Nat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chuck Church)
Thu Dec 17 14:27:43 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Chuck Church" <chuckchurch@gmail.com>
To: "'Matthew Petach'" <mpetach@netflight.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEmG1=oX3uf4OGg586SiBJxQDZoNurNicx-K0Ouaw0MESwwnNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:27:33 -0500
Cc: 'North American Network Operators' Group' <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matthew Petach
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 1:59 PM
Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Nat
>I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around to allowing feature =
parity between IPv4 and IPv6 when it comes to DHCP. =20
And that recent thread on prefix delegation doesn't really leave a good =
taste in one's mouth about how to delegate a /56 or a /48 to a CPE, and =
get that/those prefix(s) in your (ISP) routing tables. Given that =
99.999% of home users would be fine with a delegation of a single /64 =
and a single subnet I'm tempted to do that for now and let the DHCP-PD =
ink dry for a while so CPE support can follow up.
Chuck
