[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Open issues list? [Re: New (-02) version of IPv6 CPE Router draft is available for review]
On 30 jul 2008, at 15:52, Pekka Savola wrote:
ULAs are only really needed with nested CPEs, because if there's
only a single CPE you can use link locals.
The first part of the sentence is debatable. The last part is
wrong. Many applications just don't work if you use link-local
addresses.
It's not impossible to provide an application that will work with link-
locals. But it shouldn't be too difficult to get the browser vendors
on board with this once we hammer out how this should work. I do agree
that link local literarls are unworkable, there would have to be some
discovery / name resolution in place.
But look at Apple, they've been doing this for some years now wih
their airport base stations, although they of course use a special
configuration utility, not a web interface.
(As a side point, could one CPE even reliably know if there are
other CPEs?)
Of course, because it will see their DHCPv6 PD requests.
The pain with multi-interface hosts and making apps deal with scope
indexes is just too great.
Trying to set up two CPEs by connecting them both to different
interfaces isn't really a good idea...
I would agree if the ULA approach was painfree, but it isn't, users
may end up having to reboot to get rid of them in order to gain
reliable IPv6 connectivity.
IF we use ULAs for configuration this has to be very carefully limited
and controlled to limit these side effects.