IPv6 end user addressing
cb.list6 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 11 03:00:05 UTC 2011
On Aug 10, 2011 7:45 PM, "Mark Newton" <newton at internode.com.au> wrote:
> On 11/08/2011, at 8:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > I suppose that limiting enough households to too small an allocation
> > will have that effect. I would rather we steer the internet deployment
> > towards liberal enough allocations to avoid such disability for the
> > future.
> I see the lack of agreement on whether /48 or /56 or /60 is good for a
> home network to be a positive thing.
> As long as there's no firm consensus, router vendors will have to
> features which don't make silly hard-coded assumptions.
> Innovation will still happen, features will still be implemented, we'll
> still climb out of the NAT morass. But we'll do it with CPE that allows
> a richer spectrum of variation than we would if we just said, "Dammit, /48
> It's all good. At this stage of the game, any amount of "moving forward"
> better than staying where we are.
> (which reminds me: http://www.internode.on.net/news/2011/08/238.php It
> that hard)
Finally a useful post in this thread. Good work on the deployment of real
> - mark
> Mark Newton Email: newton at internode.com.au(W)
> Network Engineer Email: newton at atdot.dotat.org (H)
> Internode Pty Ltd Desk: +61-8-82282999
> "Network Man" - Anagram of "Mark Newton" Mobile: +61-416-202-223
More information about the NANOG