Re: Why /64

Le 28/10/2013 10:22, Sander Steffann a écrit :
> Hi Carl,
>
>> +1 for the /64 on the link and /48 for enterprise,
>>
>> but "at least" a /56 for home (with /60 too tiny) ?? Can you
>> elaborate on why you would need more than 4 bits subnets @ home?
>
> Today 4 bits can be enough for simple cases with i.e. a home
> network, a guest network and maybe a home-office network. But IPv6 is
> meant to last for some time, and in the (near) future it is not that
> difficult to see networks for lighting and sensors (i.e. 6lowPAN)
> being added to that.

I agree.

And I would add another aspect.  One could hardly imagine that a single
subnet (any subnet) could hold together 2^64 nodes.  That is a matter of
link-layer technology.  I think not even the largest single subnet
switch/vlan-based office networks or datacenter would approach that number.

(a single IEEE subnet is one where link-scope link-layer multicast works
across, and IP datagrams are not decremented their Hop Limit when
transmitted through).

Alex

> And I'm not being very creative right now ;-)  Besides: home users
> often don't understand the different between a wireless router and an
> access point, so they tend to daisy-chain them. In IPv4 this would
> cause multiple layers of NAT, in IPv6 you need more subnets.
>
> PS: Look at DT's plans, they are giving multiple /56s to each home.
> One for best-effort internet access, one for voice, one for
> streaming audio/video, etc. See
> https://ripe67.ripe.net/presentations/131-ripe2-2.pdf. I'm not
> saying this is the way everybody should deploy IPv6, but it is an
> example of using IPv6 address space in a different way.
>
> Cheers, Sander
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>