[128268] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Walster)
Thu Jul 29 07:09:01 2010
In-Reply-To: <1279845943.28305.7.camel@karl>
From: Matthew Walster <matthew@walster.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:08:27 +0100
To: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 23 July 2010 01:45, Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote:
> Unless I've misunderstood Matthew, and he was suggesting that the /64 be
> the link network. That would indeed effectively give the customer a
> single address, unless it was being bridged rather than routed at the
> CPE. Not sure bridging it is such a good idea - most people will
> probably want their home networks to keep working even if the ISP has an
> outage.
Sorry for the week's delay - I meant delegating a /64 using DHCPv6 PD,
I had assumed the link net would be based on provider preference - /64
would obviously make the most sense for the vast majority of
scenarios.
In my experience, I would have though well over 99% of residential
users just require one subnet, if they require additional subnets
they'll ask for them, and if it's standardised, a /56 could easily be
quickly assigned and added to either the DHCPv6 PD or static routed if
required. That would usually be a service the customer would pay extra
for. I'm purely looking at residential use here, not SOHO nor SME.
M
M
