AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
Ricky Beam
jfbeam at gmail.com
Mon Dec 2 21:25:27 UTC 2013
On Fri, 29 Nov 2013 08:39:59 -0500, Rob Seastrom <rs at seastrom.com> wrote:
> So there really is no excuse on AT&T's part for the /60s on uverse 6rd...
Except for a) greed ("we can *sell* larger slices") and b) demonstrable
user want/need.
How many residential, "home networks", have you seen with more than one
subnet? The typical household (esp Uverse) doesn't even customize the
provided router. Even a CCIE friend of mine has made ZERO changes to his
RG -- AT&T turned off WiFi and added the static block at install. (I know
NANOG is bad sample as we're all professionals and setup all kinds of
weird configurations at "home". I have 3 nets in continuous use... a
legacy public subnet from eons ago (I never renumbered), an RFC1918 subnet
overlapping that network (because it's too small), and a second RFC1918
net from a second ISP)
I wouldn't use the word "generous", but a /60 (16 "LAN"s) is way more than
what 99% of residential deployments will need for many years. We've
gotten by with a single, randomly changing, dynamic IP for decades. Until
routers come out-of-the-box setup for a dozen networks, non-networking
pros aren't going to need it, or even know that it's possible. (and the
default firewalling policy in Windows is going to confuse a lot of people
when machines start landing in different subnets can "see" each other.)
Handing out /56's like Pez is just wasting address space -- someone *is*
paying for that space. Yes, it's waste; giving everyone 256 networks when
they're only ever likely to use one or two (or maybe four), is
intentionally wasting space you could've assigned to someone else. (or
**sold** to someone else :-)) IPv6 may be huge to the power of huge, but
it's still finite. People like you are repeating the same mistakes from
the early days of IPv4... the difference is, we won't be around when
people are cursing us for the way we mismanaged early allocations.
Indeed, a /64 is too little (aka "bare minimum") and far too restrictive,
but it works for most simple (default) setups today. Which leads to DHCPv6
PD... a /60 is adequate -- it's the minimal space for the rare cases where
multiple nets are desirable or necessary. The option for /56 or even /48
should exist (esp. for "business"), but the need for such large address
spaces are an EXCEPTION in residential settings. (and those are probably
non-residential users anyway.) [FWIW, HE.net does what they do as
marketing. And it works, btw.]
More information about the NANOG
mailing list