On 11/22/2004 11:33 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
So I will argue that the value of (2) is ephemeral. It is not an objective,
it is an implementation, and in an IPv6 world you would implement in a
slightly different fashion.
That's right--the device would get a range (or block) of addresses and
then either do a 6-to-4 gateway conversion on those addresses (still using
192.168.*.*) or assign v6 directly (if that option had been enabled) but
would still use DHCP for those assignments. Server-specific holes in the
incoming connection table would still have to be managed, with a default
deny policy. Very similar but still different.
One potentially technical hurdle here is the way that the device discovers
that a range/block of addresses is available to it. Some kind of DHCP
sub-lease, or maybe a collection of options (is it a range of addresses or
an actual subnet? how big is it, and does that include net/bcast
addresses?),is going to be required. So it would obviously be useful that
Linksys et al make sure that the specs are there to help them continue
providing the same kind of high-value low-management experience. This is
the kind of cross-industry participation I'm talking about needing.
--
Eric A. Hall http://www.ehsco.com/
Internet Core Protocols http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/coreprot/
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf