[186504] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Nat
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chuck Church)
Sun Dec 20 21:23:11 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Chuck Church" <chuckchurch@gmail.com>
To: "'Mark Andrews'" <marka@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20151218004613.BB9483F6434F@rock.dv.isc.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:23:04 -0500
Cc: 'North American Network Operators' Group' <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Andrews [mailto:marka@isc.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 7:46 PM
To: Chuck Church <chuckchurch@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Matthew Petach' <mpetach@netflight.com>; 'North American Network
Operators' Group' <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Nat
>I have a single CPE router and 3 /64's in use. One for each of the
wireless SSID's and one for the wired network. This is the default for
homenet devices. A single /64 means you >have to bridge all the traffic.
>A single /64 has never been enough and it is time to grind that myth into
the ground. ISP's that say a single /64 is enough are clueless.
Mark,
I agree that a /48 or /56 being reserved for business
customers/sites is reasonable. But for residential use, I'm having a hard
time believing multi-subnet home networks are even remotely common outside
of networking folk such as the NANOG members. A lot of recent IPv4 devices
such as smart TVs have the ability to auto-discover things they can talk to
on the network. If we start segmenting our home networks to keep toasters
from talking to thermostats, doesn't this end up meaning your average home
user will need to be proficient in writing FW rules? Bridging an entire
house network isn't that bad.
Chuck
