[181982] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jul 9 04:23:47 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.x1hpayv0tfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 01:23:32 -0700
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Jul 8, 2015, at 21:55 , Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> 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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> 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)
But we are carving a limit in stone without realizing it.
Changing the network to give out larger prefixes is easy.
However, developers consistently develop to the lowest common =
denominator.
Don=E2=80=99t believe me? Try to use any of a variety of mobile apps to =
control a non-NAT device in your home from your cell phone when you=E2=80=99=
re not in the same broadcast domain as the device you want to control.
The developers have assumed that:
1. Every household is behind NAT
2. Every household is a single broadcast domain
3. There=E2=80=99s never any need to talk to a device that =
isn=E2=80=99t within the same broadcast domain as the handset.
4. Nobody would ever want to use their cell phone to =
control their $PRODUCT without putting it on the wifi network
and the $PRODUCT wired network interface will always be =
bridged to the wifi on the same subnet, right?
Given how baked in these bad assumptions have become, I shudder at the =
thought of how long after ISPs start issuing /48s it will take before we =
start to see useful products designed with that expectation in mind.
Owen
