Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Jun 3, 2017 1:04 PM, "Nick Hilliard" <[e-mail]> wrote:

Tom Herbert wrote:
> I think this is too much a generalization trying to make it a "one
> size fits all" problem. I'm not going to use my phone as a router into
> my enterprise network, I don't see any reason to have it delegate some
> complex network hierarchy.

we're talking about any network structure of any form rather than a
complex network hierarchy.  The problem as it stands is that there are
situations where the fixed /64 rules out entire categories of options.


I would agree with that. I think that these categories of options that are
being disallowed should be described to support the draft.

Tom

One of these, as you point out, would be complex hierarchies.  Another
would be the entire category of small networks that are being discussed
in the homenet wg.


> We need the ability to tether a small
> number of devices, anything more than we are talking about a different
> type of device.

The number of devices isn't the issue here; it's whether the protocol
can facilitate a single downstream network or more than one.  Right now,
we're limited to one in the usual case where the device is assigned a /64.


Nick