In message <op.x1hpayv0tfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>, "Ricky Beam" writes:
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)
I already have 3 /64's hanging off a WNDR3700 (one for each of the wireless networks and one for the wired). If I turn on the second ssid's for each radio that would be 5. As for a customer getting a ISP's to increase the /56 PD to a /52 or a /48 I just don't see that happening. It will either require custom configuration for the customer or going back to the RIR and asking for a bigger allocation based on moving from /56 to /52 or /48 for all customers. You then have to manage the transition. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org