On 2008-02-20 04:05, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 19 feb 2008, at 15:40, Dan York wrote:
Is this important? The external address(es) are still different.
Sure, but the home internal networks are identical. So Homeowner A
calls up the ISP support and is having a problem getting a machine
to work with the wireless router provided by the ISP. So the ISP
tech says "on a working machine, point your browser to 192.168.10.1
and...."
A while later Homeowner B calls in with a similar problem. The ISP
tech says "on a working machine, point your browser to 192.168.10.1
and..." Same with Homeowners C, D, E and so on.
I'm not buying that this is so important that it's worth having a box
rewrite EVERY address in EVERY packet for.
If you really want this, you can simply create a loopback interface
with address fc00::1 on it and users can type "http://[fc00::1]/"; (ok,
so the brackets are annoying, but no NAT helps against that) and the
users can connect to that address regardless of what the addresses
used on the LAN are.
I think we had this conversation recently and the answer was to make
the CPE's link-local URL something like http://[fe80::1]/. That's actually
fewer characters for the help desk to dictate than 192.168.10.1
The default case can be made automatic, as far as I can see, without
blocking the potential for non-default cases. All the issues John Klensin
mentioned need to be handled. We should take note of this:
On 2008-02-20 04:25, michael(_dot_)dillon(_at_)bt(_dot_)com wrote:
...
If nobody writes all of this up into a set of guidelines
for implementors of SOHO IPv6 gateways, including some more
details on a proper service discovery mechanism, then it isn't
going to happen.
Hopefully the starting point will be in v6ops.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf