I'm not against one or more /64 bit prefixes for a home net, if everyone else (including the ISPs) think that home networks should be able to scale up to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 hosts, I'm completely on board. It's not my resource, so I'll take all they give me. :) It would be nice to have an AT&T, Verizon, or some other major provider chime in to say they're on board with the assumptions we're making. Maybe they already have, I've been away from the list for awhile, or maybe they've indicated this allocation strategy in some other forum. I'm old school and I'm not used to having publicly routable address space to burn.
Randy On Nov 14, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Andrew McGregor wrote: > I have a /48 at home, on a retail ISP, right now. I know, one data point > does not a trend make, but it is a proof by example that some ISP is doing > that. > > Andrew > > On 15/11/2012, at 6:27 AM, Randy Turner <rtur...@amalfisystems.com> wrote: > >> >> Have their been any ISPs that have come forward to discuss their consumer >> IPv6 allocation plans? I don't think we should wrap ourselves around a >> model that says, "yeah, we need multiple /64s for consumers because that's >> the way a particular protocol works (SLAAC). Maybe we need another method. >> One /64 for a home network seems like overkill regarding address space >> utilization -- A /32 would be overkill. I know some folks think we have >> more address space than we'll ever use, but gee…. >> >> Randy >> >> >> On Nov 14, 2012, at 7:07 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: >> >>> On Nov 14, 2012, at 3:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter >>> <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 14/11/2012 02:34, Randy Turner wrote: >>>>> I was thinking that, in an effort to reduce scope to something we can >>>>> deal with for now, that a /64 would be big enough >>>> >>>> It simply isn't, because it doesn't allow subnetting in the home/car/small >>>> office or whatever. >>> >>> I don't see the point in working on the /64 case—if that's all we're trying >>> to accomplish, we've already accomplished it. The interesting work >>> Homenet is doing is in fact trying to solve the prefix distribution and >>> automatic setup problem. It's true that this is a hard problem. It's >>> also true that if we don't specify a solution, people will attempt to solve >>> it in their own ways. And if they do that, we will wind up in the >>> situation that Jim found himself in with his broken box with its own >>> built-in DHCP server. >>> >>> BTW, a little more on that topic: the reason that two DHCP servers on the >>> same wire broke Jim's network in a flaky way is that IPv4 doesn't handle >>> the multi-homing case. IPv6 deliberately places the multi-homing case >>> in-scope. This creates a bit of a problem for legacy apps that do not >>> support multi-homing, but it also creates the winning situation that if one >>> device is advertising a provisioning domain that doesn't work, applications >>> that do correctly handle multi-homing will simply use a different >>> provisioning domain. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> homenet mailing list >>> homenet@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> homenet mailing list >> homenet@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
