Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg!

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

Fred - yes, PD prefixes include the prefix length.

Arguing pedantically (reverting to my previous life for a minute) with  
your first statement, IMO an address, by itself, doesn't have a prefix  
length.  The prefix it matches for, e.g., routing may have a prefix  
length, but the address doesn't have a prefix length at all...

- Ralph

On Oct 13, 2008, at Oct 13, 2008,6:47 PM, Fred Baker wrote:

> um, hold on. two uses.
>
> DHCPv6 is used to assign host addresses to host interfaces. They  
> only have one prefix length: /128.
>
> DHCPv6 is also used to assign a prefix to the CPE router in a home.  
> the addcon draft, in large part, is saying that these are not always  
> (and perhaps should never be) /64. Please tell me that we can assign  
> a /60, a /56, or a /48 to a home if we want to.
>
> On Oct 13, 2008, at 3:33 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
>
>> I haven't had the time to catch up to these emails and get a proper
>> perspective.  But just a quick comment that DHCPv6 is not broken if
>> DHCPv6 responses from the server to the client do not include prefix
>> length - that's by design of the IPv6 architecture where the router  
>> on
>> the network is responsible for doling out the prefix length to the
>> clients and NOT the DHCPv6 server.
>>
>> Hemant
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail] 
>> ]
>> On Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred)
>> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 6:23 PM
>> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg!
>>
>>
>> On Oct 13, 2008, at 5:42 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>>
>>> On 7 okt 2008, at 19:26, Fred Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> What does it mean to be "IPv6-like"?
>>>
>>> That everything happens mostly automatic and is easy otherwise. For
>>> instance, in IPv4 you have to think about how big each subnet is. In
>>> IPv6 you don't.
>>
>> I disagree. The discussion of /48 vs /56 vs /60 vs /64 comes to mind.
>> And btw this is about a IPv4 address, like NAT64 etc are. You make
>> relatively positive statements about the other options and dump on  
>> one
>> that has the same strengths and weaknesses.
>>
>>> The IVI mapping means that at the very least a special subnet has to
>>> be created for every IPv4-reachable host. The suggestion of having
>>> non-/64 subnets and DHCPv6 is very problematic because DHCPv6  
>>> doesn't
>>> know about subnet prefix lengths.
>>
>>
>> we have a way to assign a prefix using DHCP. You're telling me it
>> doesn't know the prefix length? If so, it's broken. I haven't read  
>> that
>> spec; remind me which it is?
>>
>> And yes, regardless of the address format used - even SLACK, for that
>> matter - one has to either inject a host route into routing or  
>> inject a
>> prefix into routing. That's how routing works. The only way we can  
>> avoid
>> that is to put every mapped-address host on a LAN shared with the
>> translator. Bzzt. That doesn't scale.
>>
>>> The situation where a static mapping is set up means that the
>>> configuration can be limited to the translation box, this simply  
>>> makes
>>
>>> much more sense on every level.
>>
>> Actually, not so. And this differs from NAT64, which you spoke
>> positively about, in what way?
>> _______________________________________________
>> v4v6interim mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim
>
> _______________________________________________
> v4v6interim mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim

_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim