Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
Fred Baker
fred at cisco.com
Sat Jul 24 06:34:13 UTC 2010
I tend to think a /60 is a reasonable allocation for a residential user. In my home I have two subnets and will in time likely add two more:
- general network access
- my office (required to be separate by Cisco Information Security policy)
- (future) would likely want routable separate bandwidth for A/V at some point
- (future) Smart Grid HAN will likely be its own subnet
If my wife went to work for a company with an infosec policy like Cisco's, that becomes a fifth subnet. Yes, 16 to choose from seems reasonable.
/56 seems appropriate to a small company, /48 for a larger company, and I could see a market for a /52. A company that needs more than a /48 is likely to also be using ULAs for some of its areas, which is an automatic extension, and could always justify another /48 (or one per continent) if it really needed them.
Could I do all this within a /64? Of course, with some thought, and by getting the Smart Grid and office prefixes from other sources (Cisco, my utility) and running them over a VPN (which I do anyway). The question is why I should have to.
Why four bit boundaries? Because we're using hexadecimal, and each character identifies four bits. It makes tracking numbers simple - no "remember to count by N" as in IPv4. It's not magic, but to my small mind - and especially for of non-technical residential customers - it seems reasonable.
And yes, I think the logic behind a 48 bit MAC address is reasonable too.
On Jul 24, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:26:43 -0700
> Matthew Kaufman <matthew at matthew.at> wrote:
>
>> sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:
>>>> It is not about how many devices, it is about how many subnets, because you
>>>> may want to keep them isolated, for many reasons.
>>>>
>>>> It is not just about devices consuming lots of bandwidth, it is also about
>>>> many small sensors, actuators and so.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have no problems with giving the customer several subnets. /56 is
>>> just fine for that.
>> /56? How about /62? That certainly covers "several"... and if you're
>> really worried they might have too many subnets for that to work, how
>> about /60?
>>> I haven't seen any kind of realistic scenarios
>>> which require /48 for residential users *and* will actually use lots
>>> and lots of subnets - without requiring a similar amount of manual
>>> configuration on the part of the customer.
>>>
>>> So we end up with /56 for residential users.
>>>
>> Only because people think that the boundaries need to happen at
>> easy-to-type points given the textual representation. /56 is still
>> overkill for a house. And there's several billion houses in the world to
>> hook up.
>>
>
> So you're also strongly against 48 bit Ethernet MAC addresses? Dropping
> the two bits for group and local addresses, that's 70 368 744 177 664
> nodes per LAN. How ridiculous! What were those idiots+ thinking!
>
> "48-bit Absolute Internet and Ethernet Host Numbers", by Yogan K. Dalal,
> Robert S. Printis, *July 1981*
>
> http://ethernethistory.typepad.com/papers/HostNumbers.pdf
>
>
>
>
> + not actually idiots
>
>
http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
More information about the NANOG
mailing list