North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: v6 subnet size for DSL & leased line customers

  • From: Christopher Morrow
  • Date: Sat Dec 22 10:09:27 2007
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=VIs7rw2qEl+EDc9IJAINKj/yWmLi5jBoITk4tPmUsTA=; b=ZgNJN+hBXxuVPZCfFvMdPyW4mCsTKIbev80ux3RPVDnxg5Kpa8hD/WLEoYB1l+ZeE9pytp2v4VxYQR3zw36dUTcvb3icV+HkXadpcCxSBh5tmbjLNeCJ1L6iBQSDknp2TElG2z6p0bBpB44W6tiS8fgr9QuzI+hFxqsqD7toCqQ=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=qOzyqmtOqGTKza0RF8zSSx5U0FlLEZWYkOmOzDgNK+ctncdhomsBeXfjn0AuadBTNNSPAYLIMbexG6WTAbAw0MhQEsGidlTmMZIN+crNE7gCLABOxGzp3Xt4GkqBtSRCeodNKNnDymKcK6b1lLTQAtpGndukfNGRFw1aiF+f/x4=

On Dec 22, 2007 1:45 AM, Mark Townsley <[email protected]> wrote:
> Joe Greco wrote:
> > I'd say skip the /64 and /48.  Don't do the /64, as future-proofing.  A
> > /48 is just something I cannot see need for, given the number of addresses
> > available as a /56, unless the "home user" is actually providing
> > connectivity to a bunch of his nearby friends and neighbors.
> >
> > Having fewer options is going to be easier for the ISP, I suspect.
> >
> Not just the ISP, but the home user, and the designers of the devices
> for the home. As you point out, device configuration in the home needs
> to be as simple as possible. It would be nice if designers of new
> networked home devices (particularly those that that would like to use
> media types which might not be readily bridged to other common media
> types) could have some reasonable assurance up front that they have the
> option of an IPv6 subnet in the home to use. This would then be one less
> thing to try and automatically discover, ask the user to configure
> information about, develop a workaround for, etc. Less options is a very
> good thing here, and rampant /64s could well paint the device
> manufacturers into a corner on what tools IPv6 gives them to take
> advantage of.

can you expound some on the last part of this? the 'rampant /64's..'
part? Since auto-conf pretty much requires the LAN to be /64 sized and
if you believe more than 1 subnet would be of use to the
end-user/residence then there are only a few options left, eh? It
seems that the ppp-o-e sorts of connections could pass out this
information and make the lives of equipment/user easier, what sort of
options were you envisioning? (or what were you hoping to avoid?)

I ask because I'm fairly certain the operator and standards-body folks
both would be curious about a vendor's (or vendor-ish-person's view)
view on this issue, I just don't think a rational answer is
forthcoming from the 'user' community on this quite yet :(