[167159] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Dec 2 20:33:46 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.w7hsoeg0tfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:27:36 -0800
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG List <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 2, 2013, at 17:20 , Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 19:16:27 -0500, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> =
wrote:
>> So you go from one extreme to another. One lan to one =
lan-per-device.
>=20
> No. I'm complaning about how the automatic solution to segmenting the =
home ("homenet") doesn't put any thought into it at all, and puts =
everything in it's own network. I cannot believe anyone would ever put =
that on paper, but they did.
That isn't how I read any of the drafts that I've seen, so I'm not sure =
where you get this.
>=20
> Anyway. If you want your home segmented, then a human being needs to =
take a few minutes to think about it and then configure the network =
(physical and logical) and devices accordingly. That's a very complex =
problem to solve via AutoMagic Technology(TM) (hence the homenet =
approach.)
Nope...=20
You plug in the top level router, then start plugging stuff into it. =
Switches, other nodes, other routers. In the case of other routers, then =
you plug stuff into them. Lather, rinse, repeat. Wherever you have a =
router, you have a boundary between links.
Simple as that.
It's actually not complex for technology to figure out a hierarchy of =
routers and allocate prefixes to them, but it doesn't work out very well =
if you only have a few bits to play with and have to dense-pack the =
allocations. It basically boils down to spanning tree on steroids if you =
have a wide enough bit field to handle the breadth and depth of the =
hierarchy.
>=20
>>> isolated networks... wifi, guest wifi, lan-1, lan-2, lan-3, lan-4 =
(for 4
>>=20
>> Each of which needs a /64. 16 subnets is incredibly small.
>=20
> In this example, it takes 6. Six. 16 is almost 3x that, and thus, =
plenty big enough.
Depends on how they are connected and how you want the automation to =
work. Do you want room to grow at the various levels of the hierarchy? =
What happens when someone plugs a new router in between LAN2 and LAN3 =
that also connects LANS 5, 6, 7, and 8?
> As we're getting our prefex via DHCPv6-PD, it's not hard to ask for a =
larger prefix when needed. (of course, every idiot is going to ask for =
the largest prefix possible, and then only use 3 /64's)
So what? If the largest prefix possible is a /48, then every idiot has =
more than enough space to do what they need and there's no harm to the =
ISP or anyone else. Sounds like an ideal solution to me.
>> The only thing stifling this is ISP's being measly with how they
>> hand out address blocks. If ISPs all hand out /60's this sort of
>> development just won't happen and it will be entirely the ISP's
>> fault for being so short sighted.
>=20
> They could be do much worse... if you throw out SLAAC, your network(s) =
can be smaller than /64. I don't want to give them any ideas, but =
Uverse could use their monopoly on routers to make your lan a DHCP only =
/120.
I think if they did that, they'd do more to evaporate Uverse customers =
than to change the world of IPv6 routing at this point.
Owen
