marka at isc.org
Mon Dec 21 03:40:50 UTC 2015
In message <[email protected]>, "Chuck Church" writes:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Andrews [mailto:marka at isc.org]
> Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 7:46 PM
> To: Chuck Church <chuckchurch at gmail.com>
> Cc: 'Matthew Petach' <mpetach at netflight.com>; 'North American Network
> Operators' Group' <nanog at nanog.org>
> Subject: Re: Nat
> >I have a single CPE router and 3 /64's in use. One for each of the
> wireless SSID's and one for the wired network. This is the default for
> homenet devices. A single /64 means you >have to bridge all the traffic.
> >A single /64 has never been enough and it is time to grind that myth into
> the ground. ISP's that say a single /64 is enough are clueless.
> I agree that a /48 or /56 being reserved for business
> customers/sites is reasonable. But for residential use, I'm having a hard
> time believing multi-subnet home networks are even remotely common outside
> of networking folk such as the NANOG members. A lot of recent IPv4 devices
> such as smart TVs have the ability to auto-discover things they can talk to
> on the network. If we start segmenting our home networks to keep toasters
> from talking to thermostats, doesn't this end up meaning your average home
> user will need to be proficient in writing FW rules? Bridging an entire
> house network isn't that bad.
So *you* think the ISPs should *dictate* how a user internally
splits up their network? There is NO technical reason to NOT give
a customer multiple subnets. Every technology supports multiple
prefixes. Even with 6rd you *can* give the user multiple subnets.
It's only lazyness (or purchasing incompetence if the BR doesn't
support multiple domains) that results in ISP's handing out single
subnets over 6rd.
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
More information about the NANOG