[101198] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Townsley)
Sat Dec 22 04:52:40 2007
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:45:51 +0100
From: Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>
To: Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net>
CC: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200712211739.lBLHd59D080747@aurora.sol.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Joe Greco wrote:
> I'd say skip the /64 and /48. Don't do the /64, as future-proofing. A
> /48 is just something I cannot see need for, given the number of addresses
> available as a /56, unless the "home user" is actually providing
> connectivity to a bunch of his nearby friends and neighbors.
>
> Having fewer options is going to be easier for the ISP, I suspect.
>
Not just the ISP, but the home user, and the designers of the devices
for the home. As you point out, device configuration in the home needs
to be as simple as possible. It would be nice if designers of new
networked home devices (particularly those that that would like to use
media types which might not be readily bridged to other common media
types) could have some reasonable assurance up front that they have the
option of an IPv6 subnet in the home to use. This would then be one less
thing to try and automatically discover, ask the user to configure
information about, develop a workaround for, etc. Less options is a very
good thing here, and rampant /64s could well paint the device
manufacturers into a corner on what tools IPv6 gives them to take
advantage of.
- Mark
> ... JG
>
