JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
And then next you can say ok, so /32 bits is big enough for your home, so
let's change it again, kill autoconfiguration, ask existing IPv6 users to
redo their addressing plans, renumber, etc., and use all the rest of the
bits for routing ?
I *really* don't understand why a /32 isn't big enough for a home. Even
if you insist on SAA for getting the addresses. How many IPv6 devices is
the guy going to plug in / attach wirelessly anyway?
And so on, of course, where is the limit ? You should propose this to 6man
at the IETF.
The same IETF that until just a few months ago believed that DCCP and
SCTP would be wildly successful as new IP protocols because NATs don't
matter?
You're not getting it. Autoconfiguration is a very good feature.
No, no it isn't. It goes on the list of "interesting ideas for IPv6 that
were good enough to be implemented, and refined (in this case as DHCP),
for IPv4". Insisting on SAA is basically saying "well, you know all
those things we learned when we deployed DHCP... lets go ahead and
forget them and pretend that home machine OS vendors *and* IT
departments are wrong.
More bits
for the user to subnet means more business for smart ISPs who don't want to
sell addresses but instead services and applications much more easier to
deploy thanks to a uniform /48 ways to address all end sites.
I fail to see how a household, even a really big one, is going to attach
more bandwidth-consuming devices (which I presume is how the ISP does
more business) to a link with a /48 on it vs a link with a /64 on it. A
/64 allows more machines in your house than today's entire Internet has
connected. Unless you have a new plan for electric power delivery to the
home, there's no need to go beyond that.
Matthew Kaufman
