On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 02:33:03PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote: > > I do have IPv6 at home (a /48, waste of addressing space, I'd be fine > > with less), > > Any reason you would want less? Any reason the ISP should give you > less?
What I mean is that *if* the availability of /48 networks was an issue for some ISPs, I'd be fine with less because I don't plan to deploy 64k networks at home, though I already have ~9 around the firewall and don't expect to go much further. > > Maybe setting up a public list of ISPs where users don't have at least > > a /60 by default could help, but I suspect that most of them will > > consider that as long as their competitors are on the list there's no > > emergency. > > Exactly. And the number of users using the list as the primary > parameter for selecting an ISP would be close to 0. The critical part > is not the list, but making large enough groups of users consider IPv6 > an important parameter when selecting ISPs. In fact the IoT trend could play a role here by letting users know that they can remotely access their fridge and whatever stupid device they've deployed. But the reality is the opposite : some gateway services are/will be offered at a paid price to make these devices remotely accessible, and the claimed security provided by this gateway will be presented as a real benefit compared to the risks of anyone directly accessing your private life over IPv6. So I'm not getting much hopes for the future in this area either. Willy
