Re: Ipv6 DNS and ipv4 host - Tranistion problem
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 07:33:10PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 19:09 +0200, Simon Oosthoek wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:23:52PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> > >
> > > Except for the fact that one will most likely get a /48, there really is
> > > not much of a difference in IPv4 versus IPv6.
> > >
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, assuming we're 15 years in the future, I'm connecting
> > my *networkbox* to an ISP and I do neighbourdiscovery, would I get a /48
> > from my ISP (assuming it has some way of verifying my relation with them)?
>
> With current policy you should. But there is a movement of thought
> towards /56's becoming the standard.
hmm, what's the reasoning behind the change? Is it just stingyness?
256 subnets sounds like a lot, but if you plan to do a bit of hierarchy
underneath that, you're in trouble with only 8 bits...
> > or do I get a link local address, using which I can use some (which?)
> > protocol to get my own (do I need a fixed one, yes I think so) /48 prefix?
>
> DHCPv6 with Prefix Delegation is what you are thinking about.
> http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/presentations/march2002/DHCP-PD.pdf
tnx, I'll check it out. But I think neighbour discovery is more natural
somehow.
> Though it is probably easier for the ISP to just point the /48 to a
> fixed IP address on the uplink. Which is basically what SixXS does.
But that doesn't really fit into the spirit of autoconfiguration.
Cheers
Simon
Reply to: