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
