[131000] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Tue Oct 19 05:00:16 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4CBCA9BB.8000202@brightok.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 01:54:21 -0700
To: Jack Bates <jbates@brightok.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Oct 18, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Jack Bates wrote:
> On 10/18/2010 1:20 PM, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
>>=20
>> I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need
>> /48s. No, I don't think "that makes all the address assignments the
>> same size" is a particularly relevant or convincing argument.
>>=20
>> We're doing /56 for residential users, and have no plans to change
>> this.
>=20
> +1
>=20
> This not only makes pop assignments easier, it gives a much larger =
prefix rotation pool. Don't start the flame on rotating prefixes being =
evil. It's my implementation to at least give customers some chance at =
prefix privacy.
>=20
What if your customers don't want prefix privacy and prefer, instead, to =
have the option of accessing their resources remotely, setting up =
mobile-IP home gateways, and any of the other functions that come from =
static prefixes?
Finally, no, /56 isn't a great idea for other reasons. Sure, it will =
meet today's needs, but, it ignores a future
in which households aren't simple flat topologies, but, instead have =
multiple layers of routers dynamically
determining hierarchies and building topologies to meet a variety of =
needs not yet addressable due to the
current limitations of IPv4.
This isn't pie in the sky science fiction. Most of the technology exists =
today and all that is left is the
deployment of sufficient address resources to the consumer and some =
integration work at the vendor
level.
Owen
