[167162] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Mon Dec 2 20:56:35 2013
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
In-Reply-To: <op.w7hk1ee8tfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 19:56:13 -0600
To: NANOG List <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 2, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
> DHCPv6-PD isn't a "restriction", it's simply what gets handed out =
today. A "simple" reconfiguration on the DHCP server and it's handing =
out /56's instead. (or *allowing* /56's if requested -- it's better to =
let the customer ask for what they need/want; assuming they just default =
to asking for the largest block they're allowed and using only 3 =
networks.)
I find it amusing that people want to argue both that:
- A /56 is horribly wrong and the world will end if we don't fix it NOW.
- Providers could give out more by simply changing a setting on the DHCP =
server.
I would love to know what number of home users need 256 subnets. The =
good news is that folks doing DHCP-PD will be able to report on how many =
people request all 256 networks available, and are thus "out". In fact =
they can make a histogram from 1 to 256 networks per household, and show =
us how many request each number of subnets.
I challenge Comcast, AT&T, and others to do just that, and publish it on =
a regular basis, if only to make people stop talking about this "issue".
--=20
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
