Mark Andrews marka at
Mon Dec 2 22:59:51 UTC 2013

In message <op.w7hk1ee8tfhldh at>, "Ricky Beam" writes:
> 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

And there are moves in homenet to change that because we know it
is a bad idea that has had its place and time.  Machines are quite
capable of protecting themselves these days.

> -- 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  

You don't make assumptions.  You get the network tell you what size
the local scope is.  A simple RA/DHCP option could do this.  The
information is known by the border CPE.  You just need to advertise
this to the devices on the local network.

> > 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.)

For the few residential ISP's that do this what is it? $5 / month
per IP and how many ask for a second address? 1 in 10000, 1 in
recover the setup costs.

Go ask the bean counters about the cost of having different sized
customers.  Those costs will dwarf the income from charging for
bigger address space.  For IPv4 there wasn't a choice.  For IPv6
there is the choice of one size for all vs the additional cost of
managing different sized customers.

Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at

More information about the NANOG mailing list