Ricky Beam jfbeam at
Tue Dec 3 01:20:28 UTC 2013

On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 19:16:27 -0500, Mark Andrews <marka at> wrote:
> So you go from one extreme to another.  One lan to one lan-per-device.

No.  I'm complaning about how the automatic solution to segmenting the  
home ("homenet") doesn't put any thought into it at all, and puts  
everything in it's own network.  I cannot believe anyone would ever put  
that on paper, but they did.

Anyway. If you want your home segmented, then a human being needs to take  
a few minutes to think about it and then configure the network (physical  
and logical) and devices accordingly.  That's a very complex problem to  
solve via AutoMagic Technology(TM) (hence the homenet approach.)

>> isolated networks... wifi, guest wifi, lan-1, lan-2, lan-3, lan-4 (for 4
> Each of which needs a /64.  16 subnets is incredibly small.

In this example, it takes 6. Six.  16 is almost 3x that, and thus, plenty  
big enough.

As we're getting our prefex via DHCPv6-PD, it's not hard to ask for a  
larger prefix when needed. (of course, every idiot is going to ask for the  
largest prefix possible, and then only use 3 /64's)

> The only thing stifling this is ISP's being measly with how they
> hand out address blocks.  If ISPs all hand out /60's this sort of
> development just won't happen and it will be entirely the ISP's
> fault for being so short sighted.

They could be do much worse... if you throw out SLAAC, your network(s) can  
be smaller than /64.  I don't want to give them any ideas, but Uverse  
could use their monopoly on routers to make your lan a DHCP only /120.

More information about the NANOG mailing list