In a message written on Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 05:23:14PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Oct 23, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Leo Bicknell <bickn...@ufp.org> wrote: > >> There are some folks (like me) who advocate a DHCPv6 that can convey > >> a default gateway AND the ability to turn off RA's entirely. That > >> is make it work like IPv4. > >> > > I'd also love to turn off stateless autoconfig altogether and not be coerced > > to assign /64s to single LANs, which I am becoming convinced that it was a > > poor decision on the IETFs part. > > > Nah... The /64 thing is fine. If they hadn't done that, we likely would have > only > a 64-bit address space total. 64-bit lans with 64-bit routing identifiers are > fine.
I think the 64-bit boundry is fine (from a DHCP perspective). I do think if we're going to update the DHCP spec it should support a netmask option, just because leaving it out is short sighted to the future, but I would use it with /64's today. > There really is no need for anything smaller than /64. What, exactly, do you > think you gain from a smaller netmask? There is a slippery slope here, if users make do with smaller providers may give out smaller blocks, and so on. That said, if a provider does hand out a /64, I would very much like technology to make 16 bits of subnet + 48 bits of host, with EUI-48 used directly for autoconf as an option. Particularly when we talk about 6rd and other things that use a lot of space this option would be huge. Users would still get 16 bits of subnet, and host space so big they could never fill it. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
pgp2bo6xSqqM8.pgp
Description: PGP signature