Ricky Beam jfbeam at
Mon Dec 2 22:35:28 UTC 2013

On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:42:02 -0500, Owen DeLong <owen at> wrote:
> Quite a few with at least three out there these days. Many home gateways  
> now come with separate networks for Wired, WiFi, and Guest WiFi.

Interesting... I've not looked at the current "high end" (i.e. things that  
cost more than $17 at Tiger Direct.)

> However, as I have repeatedly said... IPv6 is not about just what we  
> need today. What we need today is limited to what we could do with the  
> scarcity inherent in IPv4 addressing. Restricting IPv6 based on those  
> limitations is absurd.

DHCPv6-PD isn't a "restriction", it's simply what gets handed out today. A  
"simple" reconfiguration on the DHCP server and it's handing out /56's  
instead. (or *allowing* /56's if requested -- it's better to let the  
customer ask for what they need/want; assuming they just default to asking  
for the largest block they're allowed and using only 3 networks.)

> IPv6 should be about what we want to be able to do in 5, 10, 20, and 50  
> years. It shouldn't be about what we need today.

We don't know what we'll need in the future. We only know what we need  
right now. Using the current dynamic mechanisms we can provide for now and  
"later", as "later" becomes apparent.

> Yes, we've suffered with a severely degraded internet for decades. Is  
> that really a reason not to make things better going forward? I don't  
> think so.

More complex is not always "better".  This is doubly true here as very few  
people ("the public") have any measurable clue when it comes to networks.  
The Internet is just something that works. When you start mixing in  
multiple networks, that's going to create problems for them. Recall my  
Windows warning... the default firewall setup blocks inbound access from  
outside the local subnet. So with the above 3-way router, a PC on the  
wired network and a laptop on WiFi would not be able to talk to each other  
without MANUAL adjustment -- or Microsoft will have to start making (even  
more) dangerous assumptions about one's network [assume every "LAN" is  
/60? /56?, on top of the already Bad Idea(tm) that "ALL LANS ARE SLASH  

> I hate to break it to you, but, no, nobody is really paying for that  
> space.

Go talk to your bean counters.  There's a line-item charge for your  
address space; they'll want it as small as possible. (they'll also want to  
make as much money off that space as possible. Even if *you* aren't  
charging for IPv{4,6} space, almost everyone else does, and wants to  
continue. Because it's a major source of revenue.)

More information about the NANOG mailing list