IPv6 end user addressing

Mon Aug 8 21:00:52 UTC 2011

On Aug 8, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote:

> 
> 
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:15:17 +0200, Mohacsi Janos said:
>> 
>>> - Home users - they usually don't know what is subnet. Setting up
>>> different subnets in their SOHO router can be difficult. Usually the
>>> simple 1 subnet for every device is enough for them. Separating some
>>> devices into  a separate subnets is usually enough for the most
>>> sophisticated home users. If  not then he can opt for business service....
>> 
>> You don't want to make the assumption that just because Joe Sixpack doesn't
>> know what a subnet is, that Joe Sixpack's CPE doesn't know either.
>> 
>> And remember that if it's 3 hops from one end of Joe Sixpack's internal net to
>> the other, you're gonna burn a few bits to support heirarchical routing so you
>> don't need a routing protocol. So if Joe's exterior-facing CPU gets handed a
>> /56 by the provider, and it hands each device it sees a /60 in case it's a
>> device that routes too, it can only support 14 devices.  And if one of the
> 
> more exactly 16 routing devices. You don't have to count the all 0 and all 1 as reserved.... maybe each deeice can see /57 or /58 or /59.... depending of capabilities your devices....
> 
> I think daisy chaining of CPE routers is bad idea - as probably done in several IPv4 home networks. Why would you build several hierarchy into you network if it is unnecessary?
> 
> 
I can see things like wanting to have an entertainment systems network that is fronted
by a router with additional networks for each entertainment system fronted by their
own router, segmentation of various appliance networks with possibly an appliance
front-end router, etc.

There are lots of possibilities we haven't thought of here yet. Limiting end-users
to /56 or worse will only stifle the innovation that will help us identify the possibilities.
For this, if no other reason, (and I cite the limitations under which we have begun
to frame our assumptions about how the internet works as a result of NAT as an
example), I think we should avoid preserving this cultural conditioning in IPv6.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20110808/adff9af2/attachment.bin>