Current Consensus on IPv6 Customer Allocation Size
mark at exonetric.com
Wed Aug 1 23:35:45 CEST 2012
On 1 Aug 2012, at 22:25, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 03:20:58PM -0600, Tim Densmore wrote:
>> On 8/1/2012 3:12 PM, Mark Blackman wrote:
>>> More than 256 subnets in the home? Who would want to manage all of that?
>> Hi Mark,
>> Thanks for the input! It's not an argument I'm making, but one I have
>> seen made. Something along the lines of "in the future your fridge and
>> TV will each need their own own subnet" - that kind of thought.
>> Obviously that'd be a ways down the road.
> In IPv6 land, your /64 is your /32 in IPv4. Given that some of
> us run out of IPv4 /24 at home (nevermind the virtual hosts,
> kilonode and meganode hardware is coming) a /48 for each
> residential user appears a no-brainer.
I'm arguing that's the uncommon case and operators should
have a default prefix that's closer to the common case, but
have some mechanism for allocating to self-described power-users.
I could just about see a /56 by default, but not ever a /48 by
default for a single family dwelling.
A genuinely separate subnet is a management burden, which
I'd guess that 95% or more of single family residential
customers simply aren't looking for.
More information about the ipv6-ops