Re: IPv6 end user addressing

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

> Someday, I expect the pantry to have a barcode reader on it connected back
> a computer setup for the kitchen someday.  Most of us already use barcode
> readers when we shop so its not a big step to home use.

Nah... That's short-term thinking. The future holds advanced pantries with
RFID sensors that know what is in the pantry and when they were manufactured,
what their expiration date is, etc. The refrigerator will have not only the
necessary RFID sensors, but, multiple pressure transducers capable of
recognizing not only that there is a carton of milk in the refrigerator, but,
how much milk is remaining.

You'll be able to scan a QR code in the grocery store that links to a recipe
for something you thought would be good for dinner, pass the ingredient
list to the web server in the refrigerator and get back a nearly instant
reply containing the relevant inventory list and a list of items you need
to buy to complete the recipe.

> Just about anything with fireware in it will eventually connect to the net.
I think you meant firmware, and, I'd say that a lot of things (cans, jars,
milk cartons, etc.) that don't currently connect to the net will actually
form IP adjacencies in the future.

> The typical household already has 1 or 2 subnets.
Or even more in some cases (LAN, WLAN, WLAN Guest, DMZ for example).

> > I would like to have innovations in SOHO devices, too; who knows what
> > these may be.  But I fear we may repeat the mistake that caused NAT to
> > be a necessity in IPv4 -- exhausting address space -- by foolishly
> > assuming that every household is going to need twenty-four orders of
> > magnitude more public addresses than it has today.
> >
> > That is what these practices do -- they literally give end-users
> > twenty-four orders of magnitude more addresses, while it is easy to
> > imagine that we will come within one order of magnitude of running
> > completely out of IPv6 addresses for issuing to service providers.
>
> Housholds can get as much internal addressing as they need today and as
> many nets as they need today with RFC1918.  10/8 broken up into
> to /24 is equivalent to a /48 broken up into /64s.
>
> A /56 is equivalent to 192.168/16 broken up into its class C's.
Good point.

> > I didn't know what the digit "1" followed by twenty-four zeroes was
> > called.  I had to look it up.  So our end-users will be receiving
> > about one-Septillion addresses to use in their home, but no one seems
> > to be asking what future technology we may be harming by possibly
> > constraining the global address pool.
>
> There was a concious decision made a decade and a half ago to got to
> 128 bits instead of 64 bits and give each subnet 64 bits so we would
> never have to worry about the size of a subnet again.  IPv6 is about
> managing networks not managing addresses.
Yep.

Owen