Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

["Ricky Beam" <jfbeam () gmail com>]

On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:49:17 -0400, Karl Auer <kauer () biplane com au> wrote:
> You, we, all of us have to stop using the present to limit the future.
> What IS should not be used to define what SHOULD BE.
>
> What people NOW HAVE in their homes should not be used to dictate to
> them what they CAN HAVE in their homes, which is what you do when you
> provide them only with non-globally-routable address space (IPv4 NAT),
> or too few subnets (IPv6 /56) to name just two examples.

Talking about IPv6, we aren't carving a limit in granite. 99.99999% of  
home networks currently have no need for multiple networks, and thus,  
don't ask for anything more; they get a single /64 prefix. If tomorrow  
they need more, set the hint to 60 and they get a /60. Need more, ask for  
56... CURRENTLY, providers have their DHCP server(s) set to a limit of 56.  
But that's simply a number in a config file; it can be changed as easily  
as it was set the first time. (source pool size and other infrastructure  
aside.) It's just like the escalation of speeds: as the need for it rises,  
it becomes available. (in general, at least)