Re: IPv6 end user addressing

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Aug 10, 2011, at 11:17 AM, Jeff Wheeler wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> > That said, /48 to the home should be what is happening, and /56 is
> > a better compromise than anything smaller.
>
> Is hierarchical routing within the SOHO network the reason you believe
> /48 is useful?  You don't really imagine that end-users will require
> more than 2^8 subnets, but that they will want several levels of very
> simple, nibble-aligned routers within their network?

Not necessarily nibble aligned, but, multiple bits per level, yes.

> This is perhaps a good discussion to have.  I, for one, see CPE
> vendors still shipping products without IPv6 support at all, let alone
> any mechanism for creating an address or routing hierarchy within the
> home without the end-user configuring it himself.  I am not aware of
> any automatic means to do this, or even any working group trying to
> produce that feature.

If we are stingy in address allocations, it will stifle such innovations as
the vendors tend to develop to the lowest common denominator. If we
make the allocations available, innovative ideas will make use of them.

> Is it true that there is no existing work on this?  If that is the
> case, why would we not try to steer any such future work in such a way
> that it can manage to do what the end-user wants without requiring a
> /48 in their home?

No, it is not true.

I suppose that limiting enough households to too small an allocation
will have that effect. I would rather we steer the internet deployment
towards liberal enough allocations to avoid such disability for the
future.

Have we learned nothing from the way NAT shaped the (lack of)
innovation in the home?

Owen