On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:49:17 -0400, Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote:
You, we, all of us have to stop using the present to limit the future. What IS should not be used to define what SHOULD BE.
What people NOW HAVE in their homes should not be used to dictate to them what they CAN HAVE in their homes, which is what you do when you provide them only with non-globally-routable address space (IPv4 NAT), or too few subnets (IPv6 /56) to name just two examples.
Talking about IPv6, we aren't carving a limit in granite. 99.99999% of home networks currently have no need for multiple networks, and thus, don't ask for anything more; they get a single /64 prefix. If tomorrow they need more, set the hint to 60 and they get a /60. Need more, ask for 56... CURRENTLY, providers have their DHCP server(s) set to a limit of 56. But that's simply a number in a config file; it can be changed as easily as it was set the first time. (source pool size and other infrastructure aside.) It's just like the escalation of speeds: as the need for it rises, it becomes available. (in general, at least)