[128305] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Jul 30 04:58:39 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimVj8rnsGr0_2kr-by=4fbz5DwUB-ameiR+woQy@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 01:53:45 -0700
To: Matthew Walster <matthew@walster.org>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 30, 2010, at 12:27 AM, Matthew Walster wrote:
> On 29 July 2010 18:08, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org> wrote:
>> There's a good chance that in the long run multi-subnet home networks =
will become the norm.
>=20
> With all due respect, I can't see it. Why would a home user need
> multiple subnets? Are they really likely to have CPE capable of
> routing between subnets at 21st Century LAN speeds? Isn't that
> needlessly complicating the home environment?
>=20
1. Because eventually, home environments will become cognizant
of the fact that they need more than one security profile for =
more
than one usage.
Because the number of devices present in home networks today
is a very tiny fraction of the likely number in just a few years =
as
new applications are developed to take advantage of the =
restoration
of the end-to-end model of the internet.
Because the devices in homes today represent a small fraction
of the diversity that is likely within the next 10 years.
2. Yes, they are already available. A moderate PC with 4 Gig-E
ports can actually route all four of them at near wire speed.
For 10/100Mbps, you can get full featured CPE like the SRX-100
for around $500. That's the upper end of the residential CPE
price range, but, it's a small fraction of the cost of that =
functionality
just 2 years ago.
3. Not at all. In fact, one could argue that limited address space,
NAT, uPNP, and a number of the things home users live with
today complicate the home environment much more than a
relatively simple router with DHCP-PD and some basic
default security policies for such subnets as:
Home sensor network and/or appliances
Kids net (nanny software?)
Home entertainment systems
Guest wireless
General purpose network
> Additionally, when it comes to address size, Andy Davidson et al make
> a good point - you request what you expect to assign, and due to the
> massive availability of the IPv6 address space, you generally get it
> assigned within a few days. It just seems *wasteful* to me. /32 is a
> lot of space, if most customers are only going to have a few machines
> on one subnet, why not just give them a /64 and have an easy way to
> just click on a button on your customer portal or similar to assign a
> /48 and get it routed to them.
>=20
Why go to all that extra effort instead of just giving them the /48 to =
begin
with? What is the gain to the preservation of integers?
How's this sound... Try IPv6 as designed with liberal address =
assignments
in favor of good aggregation for 2000::/3. If we run out of that, I'll =
support
any reasonable proposal to be conservative with the other 7/8ths of the
address space if I'm still alive when we get there.
Owen
