Sounds like someone's getting caught up in the hype of a few buzzwords. I can't imagine where more than a couple bits of separately isolated networks in a home would be required. Most of those things you mentioned have no need to be isolated and are just being used to support a decision that was already made than evidence that lead to a decision. I'm not advocating anyone do anything other than what best practices dictate, just that whomever came up with best practices got a little caught up in the moment. ----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karl Auer" <kauer@biplane.com.au> To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 9:49:17 PM Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 21:03 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:
I wasn't aware that residential users had (intentionally) multiple layers of routing within the home.
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. Multiple layers of routing might not be what is now in the home, but it doesn't take that much imagination to envision a future where there are hundreds, or even thousands of separate networks in the average home, some permanent, some ephemeral, and quite possibly all requiring end-to-end connectivity into the wider Internet. Taking into account just a few current technologies (virtual machines, car networks, personal networks, guest networks, entertainment systems) and fast-forwarding just a few years it's easy to imagine tens of subnets being needed - so it's not much of a leap to hundreds. And if we can already dimly see a future where hundreds might be needed, history tells us that there will probably be applications that need thousands. Unless of course we decide now that we don't WANT that. Then we should make it hard for it to happen by applying entirely arbitrary brakes like "/48 sounds too big to me, let's make it 1/256th of that." Regards, K. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer http://twitter.com/kauer389 GPG fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4 Old fingerprint: EC67 61E2 C2F6 EB55 884B E129 072B 0AF0 72AA 9882