Re: [IPv6] RFC 6724 shouldn't prefer partial reachability over reachability

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Well, e.g. in a stub network with DHCPv6 PD, if the customer site is
multi-homed for resiliency, it would be nice if that worked. This would
require the device on the stub network to try both source prefixes, so it
probably doesn’t work at the moment, but we are talking about what remains
to do to make it work.
It’s not clear to me that this is the killer app, or even the right
approach, but I don’t see the problem that you do with exploring this: my
motivation certainly isn’t to avoid paying for enterprise-grade routers
other than in the sense that clearly they wouldn’t make economic sense in
this application.

I do realize that if we made this work in the home, it would have
implications for the enterprise market in the long run, but that’s a path
we’ve all trod many times before, and I don’t think we should factor that
concern into our evaluation of what the right approach to the problem is.

Op di 21 nov 2023 om 09:23 schreef Ole Troan <[e-mail]>

> > Remember that my target market is end users, not enterprise. What sort
> of routers can an end user buy that will automatically do what you suggest?
>
>
> What sort of host and applications can an end user buy that supports MPMH?
>
> O.
>
>
>