Subject: Re: v6 question
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Michael Richardson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/09/2000 23:12:59
>>>>> "itojun" == itojun <email@example.com> writes:
itojun> If they are really using DHCP to configure customer router,
itojun> they're broken. RFC2131 page 5 clearly says:
*They* aren't configuring a customer router. They think they are
configuring an end node.
*We* are configuring the router/NAT (in v6 land).
They don't want to give out subnets because of IP address shortages, and
because of aggregation issues.
Nobody is doing v6 yet. (maybe I'm wrong...)
When they do, there shouldn't be a shortage of addresses, and hopefully
this will mean that they can give us topologically interesting address out of
some pool they have. If someone solves the multihoming vs aggregation problem
(like the kid in "Angels on the Field" movie.. "It could happen!"), then
maybe we can use any allocation with a cable modem.
>> DHCP is not intended for use in configuring routers.
] Out and about in Ottawa. hmmm... beer. | firewalls [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works, Ottawa, ON |net architect[
] firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca/ |device driver[
] panic("Just another NetBSD/notebook using, kernel hacking, security guy"); [