[186460] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Nat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Fri Dec 18 22:43:02 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: "Chuck Church" <chuckchurch@gmail.com>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 17 Dec 2015 14:27:33 -0500."
<01de01d13900$fe364dd0$faa2e970$@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:46:13 +1100
Cc: 'North American Network Operators' Group' <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
In message <01de01d13900$fe364dd0$faa2e970$@gmail.com>, "Chuck Church" writes:
> -----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.
>
> 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.
I have a single CPE router and 3 /64's in use. One for each of the
wireless SSID's and one for the wired network. This is the default
for homenet devices. A single /64 means you have to bridge all the
traffic.
A single /64 has never been enough and it is time to grind that
myth into the ground. ISP's that say a single /64 is enough are
clueless.
Mark
> Chuck
>
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
