Ricky Beam jfbeam at
Mon Dec 2 23:10:28 UTC 2013

On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:14:38 -0500, Tony Hain <alh-ietf at> wrote:
> If you even hint at a  /64 as the standard for residential deployment,

I never said that should be the standard.  The way most systems do it  
today, you get a /64 without doing anything.  If that's all you need, then  
you're done.  If you want more networks, you ask for them via DHCPv6, and  
you can ask for prefix size you need (you may not get it, 'tho.)   
Currently, ISPs are defaulting to /60 as that's fair compromise for  
current networking. It's an easy limit to change, if they're willing to do  

> Trying to develop the automation necessary for consumer plug-n-play
> subnets shows that even a /56 is virtually unusable...

I'm the insane one for saying a single /64 and a /60 are perfectly  
workable today, but every damned device in the home getting it's very own  
/64 is *NECESSARY*??? If that's your only answer to home automation, then  
you should quit now, and leave the solar system.

Multiple networks REQUIRE a working understanding of networking; we have  
yet to escape that.  I get how people want to make networking as dumb and  
simple as possible. However, giving an entire /64 LAN to a single device  
for a single purpose is certifiably insane. If a 2^64 address LAN cannot  
hold all of the devices in your house, there's something very wrong here.  
:-) I do understand the desire, and even need, for system isolation, but a  
LAN-per-device is beyond insane.

Also, until 20$ switches become infinitely more intelligent, the typical  
home network is a flat network. (with a "maybe" on isolation between wired  
and wireless)  The only logical reason for multiple /64 LANs is multiple,  
isolated networks... wifi, guest wifi, lan-1, lan-2, lan-3, lan-4 (for 4  
port router), beyond physical ports are VLANs and thus switches that can  
handle VLANs, and something has to configure all that.

More information about the NANOG mailing list