Re: Definitive Guide to IPv6 adoption

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Oct 18, 2010, at 1:10 PM, Jack Bates wrote:

> On 10/18/2010 1:20 PM, sthaug () nethelp no wrote:
> > I still haven't seen any good argument for why residential users need
> > /48s. No, I don't think "that makes all the address assignments the
> > same size" is a particularly relevant or convincing argument.
> >
> > We're doing /56 for residential users, and have no plans to change
> > this.
>
> +1
>
> This not only makes pop assignments easier, it gives a much larger prefix rotation pool. Don't start the flame on 
> rotating prefixes being evil. It's my implementation to at least give customers some chance at prefix privacy.

What if your customers don't want prefix privacy and prefer, instead, to have the option of accessing their resources 
remotely, setting up mobile-IP home gateways, and any of the other functions that come from static prefixes?

Finally, no, /56 isn't a great idea for other reasons. Sure, it will meet today's needs, but, it ignores a future
in which households aren't simple flat topologies, but, instead have multiple layers of routers dynamically
determining hierarchies and building topologies to meet a variety of needs not yet addressable due to the
current limitations of IPv4.

This isn't pie in the sky science fiction. Most of the technology exists today and all that is left is the
deployment of sufficient address resources to the consumer and some integration work at the vendor
level.

Owen