Re: How to force rapid ipv6 adoption

[Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>]

In message <56157950.5040400 () lugosys com>, "Israel G. Lugo" writes:
> On 10/03/2015 08:40 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> > So a /48 isn’t about being able to support 295,147,905,179,352,825,856 devic
> es in every home, it’s about being able to have 16 bits of subnet mask to use 
> in delegating addresses in a dynamic plug-and-play hierarchical topology that
>  can evolve on demand without user configuration or intervention.
>
> Which is IMO scarcely enough to be as flexible as IPv6 is being touted.
> I've always considered 16 bits of subnetting way too small for an end
> site. Especially if you want to do things like dynamic plug-and-play
> hierarchical topology. Just following Robin Johansson's example in
> another email:

Which is why "homenet" routers don't do that.  They just get the
prefixes they need now and route them within the site.  If they
need a additional prefix they ask for it when they needed it.  65000
routes is not a lot of routes for even the smallest of routers to
handle.

Mark

> On 10/02/2015 07:08 PM, Robin Johansson wrote:
> > If a /48 is assigned to each customer, then the first wireless router
> > gets a /52, second router a /56 and there is room to connect one more
> > level of devices. All works out of the box, everyone is happy, no
> > support calls.
>
> We only have up to 3 levels, and each level only supports 16 branches.
> May be fine for mom and dad now, but certainly not for other complex
> cases. And when you start factoring the whole "soup cans with IPv6" thing...
>
> I still think IPv6 should've been at least 192 bits long.
>
> Israel G. Lugo
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org