Current Consensus on IPv6 Customer Allocation Size
seth.mos at dds.nl
Thu Aug 2 07:38:23 CEST 2012
Op 1 aug 2012, om 23:12 heeft Mark Blackman het volgende geschreven:
> On 1 Aug 2012, at 22:03, Tim Densmore <tdensmore at tarpit.cybermesa.com> wrote:
>> - It's "easy" to forsee that someday in the future people will need more than 256 subnets in the home, and since nibble boundaries are considered a must, then /48 is the only option.
> More than 256 subnets in the home? Who would want to manage all of that?
You're approaching this the wrong way. Try from a computer/router standpoint, not human.
So you have the initial router that gets a /48 assignment (for example through DHCP-PD), this router then hands out DHCP-PD as well, but /56 in size. But you need to allocate part of the existing /48 for this pool which you then can not use for anything else.
You don't want to hand out just a /64 because you don't know what's behind it.
It means that even if they buy *a* router at your favourite electronics store and hook it up to the existing router (because they wanted better WIFI) or something else. They still would have native IPv6 internet without hoops and it would just work. Atleast a bit more intuitive then it does now.
Disclaimer: I am a developer of the open source pfSense firewall. It does just this, I've tested upto 3 levels deep.
Assigning a /60 pretty makes any sort of flexible approach to this impossible, it's too bad that the previous experience has made us apply the same reasoning to a plenty large address space.
More information about the ipv6-ops