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.dillon@xxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf