Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

Thu Jul 9 13:02:40 UTC 2015

Sounds like someone's getting caught up in the hype of a few buzzwords. I can't imagine where more than a couple bits of separately isolated networks in a home would be required. Most of those things you mentioned have no need to be isolated and are just being used to support a decision that was already made than evidence that lead to a decision. 

I'm not advocating anyone do anything other than what best practices dictate, just that whomever came up with best practices got a little caught up in the moment. 

----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 

Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Karl Auer" <kauer at biplane.com.au> 
To: nanog at nanog.org 
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 9:49:17 PM 
Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion 

On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 21:03 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> I wasn't aware that residential users had (intentionally) multiple 
> layers of routing within the home. 

You, we, all of us have to stop using the present to limit the future. 
What IS should not be used to define what SHOULD BE. 

What people NOW HAVE in their homes should not be used to dictate to 
them what they CAN HAVE in their homes, which is what you do when you 
provide them only with non-globally-routable address space (IPv4 NAT), 
or too few subnets (IPv6 /56) to name just two examples. 

Multiple layers of routing might not be what is now in the home, but it 
doesn't take that much imagination to envision a future where there are 
hundreds, or even thousands of separate networks in the average home, 
some permanent, some ephemeral, and quite possibly all requiring 
end-to-end connectivity into the wider Internet. Taking into account 
just a few current technologies (virtual machines, car networks, 
personal networks, guest networks, entertainment systems) and 
fast-forwarding just a few years it's easy to imagine tens of subnets 
being needed - so it's not much of a leap to hundreds. And if we can 
already dimly see a future where hundreds might be needed, history tells 
us that there will probably be applications that need thousands. 

Unless of course we decide now that we don't WANT that. Then we should 
make it hard for it to happen by applying entirely arbitrary brakes like 
"/48 sounds too big to me, let's make it 1/256th of that." 

Regards, K. 

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au) 
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer 
http://twitter.com/kauer389 

GPG fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4 
Old fingerprint: EC67 61E2 C2F6 EB55 884B E129 072B 0AF0 72AA 9882 