![nanog logo](/images/nanog-logo.png)
nanog mailing list archives
RE: Nat
From: "Chuck Church" <chuckchurch () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:23:04 -0500
-----Original Message----- From: Mark Andrews [mailto:marka () isc org] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 7:46 PM To: Chuck Church <chuckchurch () gmail com> Cc: 'Matthew Petach' <mpetach () netflight com>; 'North American Network Operators' Group' <nanog () nanog org> Subject: Re: Nat
I have a single CPE router and 3 /64's in use. One for each of the
wireless SSID's and one for the wired network. This is the default for homenet devices. A single /64 means you >have to bridge all the traffic.
A single /64 has never been enough and it is time to grind that myth into
the ground. ISP's that say a single /64 is enough are clueless. Mark, I agree that a /48 or /56 being reserved for business customers/sites is reasonable. But for residential use, I'm having a hard time believing multi-subnet home networks are even remotely common outside of networking folk such as the NANOG members. A lot of recent IPv4 devices such as smart TVs have the ability to auto-discover things they can talk to on the network. If we start segmenting our home networks to keep toasters from talking to thermostats, doesn't this end up meaning your average home user will need to be proficient in writing FW rules? Bridging an entire house network isn't that bad. Chuck
Current thread:
- Re: Nat, (continued)
- RE: Nat Chuck Church (Dec 20)
- RE: Nat Keith Medcalf (Dec 20)
- Re: Nat Mike Hammett (Dec 20)
- Re: Nat Randy Fischer (Dec 20)
- Re: Nat Mike Hammett (Dec 20)
- RE: Nat Keith Medcalf (Dec 20)
- Re: Nat Jason Baugher (Dec 20)
- Re: Nat Mark Tinka (Dec 21)
- Re: Nat Ahmed Munaf (Dec 23)
- Re: Nat Mike Hammett (Dec 21)
- Re: Nat Matt Palmer (Dec 20)