On Dec 22, 2007 1:45 AM, Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com> wrote:
Joe Greco wrote:
I'd say skip the /64 and /48. Don't do the /64, as future-proofing. A /48 is just something I cannot see need for, given the number of addresses available as a /56, unless the "home user" is actually providing connectivity to a bunch of his nearby friends and neighbors.
Having fewer options is going to be easier for the ISP, I suspect.
Not just the ISP, but the home user, and the designers of the devices for the home. As you point out, device configuration in the home needs to be as simple as possible. It would be nice if designers of new networked home devices (particularly those that that would like to use media types which might not be readily bridged to other common media types) could have some reasonable assurance up front that they have the option of an IPv6 subnet in the home to use. This would then be one less thing to try and automatically discover, ask the user to configure information about, develop a workaround for, etc. Less options is a very good thing here, and rampant /64s could well paint the device manufacturers into a corner on what tools IPv6 gives them to take advantage of.
can you expound some on the last part of this? the 'rampant /64's..' part? Since auto-conf pretty much requires the LAN to be /64 sized and if you believe more than 1 subnet would be of use to the end-user/residence then there are only a few options left, eh? It seems that the ppp-o-e sorts of connections could pass out this information and make the lives of equipment/user easier, what sort of options were you envisioning? (or what were you hoping to avoid?) I ask because I'm fairly certain the operator and standards-body folks both would be curious about a vendor's (or vendor-ish-person's view) view on this issue, I just don't think a rational answer is forthcoming from the 'user' community on this quite yet :( -Chris