[181906] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ricky Beam)
Thu Jul 9 03:24:00 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: "Karl Auer" <kauer@biplane.com.au>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:55:36 -0400
From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1436410157.27450.66.camel@karl>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:49:17 -0400, Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote:
> You, we, all of us have to stop using the present to limit the future.
> What IS should not be used to define what SHOULD BE.
>
> What people NOW HAVE in their homes should not be used to dictate to
> them what they CAN HAVE in their homes, which is what you do when you
> provide them only with non-globally-routable address space (IPv4 NAT),
> or too few subnets (IPv6 /56) to name just two examples.
Talking about IPv6, we aren't carving a limit in granite. 99.99999% of
home networks currently have no need for multiple networks, and thus,
don't ask for anything more; they get a single /64 prefix. If tomorrow
they need more, set the hint to 60 and they get a /60. Need more, ask for
56... CURRENTLY, providers have their DHCP server(s) set to a limit of 56.
But that's simply a number in a config file; it can be changed as easily
as it was set the first time. (source pool size and other infrastructure
aside.) It's just like the escalation of speeds: as the need for it rises,
it becomes available. (in general, at least)
