On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 19:16:27 -0500, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
So you go from one extreme to another. One lan to one lan-per-device.
No. I'm complaning about how the automatic solution to segmenting the home ("homenet") doesn't put any thought into it at all, and puts everything in it's own network. I cannot believe anyone would ever put that on paper, but they did. Anyway. If you want your home segmented, then a human being needs to take a few minutes to think about it and then configure the network (physical and logical) and devices accordingly. That's a very complex problem to solve via AutoMagic Technology(TM) (hence the homenet approach.)
isolated networks... wifi, guest wifi, lan-1, lan-2, lan-3, lan-4 (for 4
Each of which needs a /64. 16 subnets is incredibly small.
In this example, it takes 6. Six. 16 is almost 3x that, and thus, plenty big enough. As we're getting our prefex via DHCPv6-PD, it's not hard to ask for a larger prefix when needed. (of course, every idiot is going to ask for the largest prefix possible, and then only use 3 /64's)
The only thing stifling this is ISP's being measly with how they hand out address blocks. If ISPs all hand out /60's this sort of development just won't happen and it will be entirely the ISP's fault for being so short sighted.
They could be do much worse... if you throw out SLAAC, your network(s) can be smaller than /64. I don't want to give them any ideas, but Uverse could use their monopoly on routers to make your lan a DHCP only /120.