Current Consensus on IPv6 Customer Allocation Size

[Doug Barton]

On 8/1/2012 9:40 PM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Doug Barton wrote:
> 
>> Evidence please.
>>
>> I think (and no, I don't have hard facts here either, just experience)
>> that the vast majority of home users have 1 network device, and could
>> live quite happily with 1 v6 subnet.
>>
>> The people who buy, and use, multiple routers at the same time are us. :)
> 
> Did I mention home user? :)

Fair enough.

> But even so, a quick, non-scientific survey of what my friends

Your friends (by definition) are outliers on the bell-shaped curve.

> run 'at
> home' suggests about 1 in 4 run more than one routing device in the home
> if for no reason than to get either additional wired ports or extend
> WIFI coverage.

Extending wifi coverage doesn't need cascading PD, it needs a bridge.

> Looking at some SOHO type businesses I've dealt with, a majority of them
> do have multiple routing devices.  Again not just because they need them
> to actually run multiple subnets but because the business grew and they
> needed more ports in more places.  Regardless the devices just have to
> work. 

My experience of the small to midsize business market is similar to
yours, and I think "just work" is a nice goal, but that also doesn't
necessarily mean cascading PD. In fact, I think that to the extent they
would notice at all most SOHO users would be quite surprised if the fact
that something was plugged into one jack or another meant that it
received a totally different address.

Just because with v6 you _can_ have lots of networks, cascading or
otherwise, doesn't mean that you should.

> Multiply NAT'ed IPv4 will be replaced by multiply nested IPv6 PD.

I sincerely hope not.


-- 

    I am only one, but I am one.  I cannot do everything, but I can do
    something.  And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what
    I can do.
			-- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909)