Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Jul 29, 2010, at 4:08 AM, Matthew Walster wrote:

> On 23 July 2010 01:45, Karl Auer <kauer () biplane com au> wrote:
> > Unless I've misunderstood Matthew, and he was suggesting that the /64 be
> > the link network. That would indeed effectively give the customer a
> > single address, unless it was being bridged rather than routed at the
> > CPE. Not sure bridging it is such a good idea - most people will
> > probably want their home networks to keep working even if the ISP has an
> > outage.
>
> Sorry for the week's delay - I meant delegating a /64 using DHCPv6 PD,
> I had assumed the link net would be based on provider preference - /64
> would obviously make the most sense for the vast majority of
> scenarios.
>
> In my experience, I would have though well over 99% of residential
> users just require one subnet, if they require additional subnets
> they'll ask for them, and if it's standardised, a /56 could easily be
> quickly assigned and added to either the DHCPv6 PD or static routed if
> required. That would usually be a service the customer would pay extra
> for. I'm purely looking at residential use here, not SOHO nor SME.
>
> M
>
> M

Why not just give them a /48 and not worry about who needs what?

Why add the cost and complexity of all these different sized assignments
based on requests and such?

If we give every household on the planet a /48 (approximately 3 billion
/48s), we consume less than 1/8192 of 2000::/3.

Even if it turns out this is a bad idea and we can't sustain this level of IP
consumption, we still have 7/8ths of the address space available to use
more conservative addressing plans.

Owen