Re: [v4v6interim] You have been dugg!

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: v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred)
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 6:23 PM
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum
Cc: v4v6interim@ietf.org
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
v4v6interim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
v4v6interim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim