Re: Nat

[Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>]

In message <01de01d13900$fe364dd0$faa2e970$@gmail.com>, "Chuck Church" writes:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces () nanog org] On Behalf Of Matthew Petach
> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 1:59 PM
> Cc: North American Network Operators' Group <nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: Nat
>
> > I'm still waiting for the IETF to come around to allowing feature
> > parity between IPv4 and IPv6 when it comes to DHCP.
>
> And that recent thread on prefix delegation doesn't really leave a good
> taste in one's mouth about how to delegate a /56 or a /48 to a CPE, and
> get that/those prefix(s) in your (ISP) routing tables.  Given that
> 99.999% of home users would be fine with a delegation of a single /64 and
> a single subnet I'm tempted to do that for now and let the DHCP-PD ink
> dry for a while so CPE support can follow up.

I have a single CPE router and 3 /64's in use.  One for each of the
wireless SSID's and one for the wired network.  This is the default
for homenet devices.  A single /64 means you have to bridge all the
traffic.

A single /64 has never been enough and it is time to grind that
myth into the ground.  ISP's that say a single /64 is enough are
clueless.

Mark

> Chuck
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org