|
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
>> vendors, like everyone else, will do what is in their best interests.
>> as i am an operator, not a vendor, that is often not what is in my best
>> interest, marketing literature aside. i believe it benefits the ops
>> community to be honest when the two do not seem to coincide.
> If the ops community doesn't provide enough addresses and a way to use
> them then the vendors will do the same thing they did in v4.
i presume you mean nat v6/v6. this would be a real mess and i don't
think anyone is contending it is desirable. but this discussion is
ostensibly operators trying to understand what is actually appropriate
and useful for a class of customers, i believe those of the consumer,
soho, and similar scale.
to summarize the positions i think i have heard
o one /64 subnet per device, but the proponent gave no estimate of the
number of devices
o /48
o /56
o /64
the latter three all assuming that the allocation would be different if
the site had actual need and justification.
personally, i do not see an end site needing more than 256 subnets *by
default*, though i can certainly believe a small minority of them need
more and would use the escape clause. so, if we, for the moment, stick
to the one /64 per subnet religion, than a /56 seems sufficient for the
default allocation.
personally, i have a hard time thinking that any but a teensie minority,
who can use the escape clause, need more than 256. hence, i just don't
buy the /48 position.
personally, i agree that one subnet is likely to be insufficient in a
large proportion of cases. so keeping to the /64 per subnet religion, a
/64 per site is insufficient for the default.
still personally, i think the one /64 subnet per device is analogous to
one receptacle per mains breaker, i.e. not sensible.
> there are three legs to the tripod
> network operator
> user
> equipment manufacturer
> They have (or should have) a mutual interest in:
> Transparent and automatic configuration of devices.
as you have seen from chris's excellent post [0] on this one, one size
does not fit all. this is likely another worthwhile, but separate,
discussion.
> The assignment of globally routable addresses to internet
> connected devices
i suspect that there are folk out there who equate nat with security. i
suspect we both think them misguided.
> The user having some control over what crosses the boundry
> between their network and the operators.
yup
randy
---
[0] - <http://www.merit.edu/mailinglist/mailarchives/old_archive/msg04887.html>
|