Re: Why /64

Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> Mon, 28 October 2013 09:23 UTC

Return-Path: <sander@steffann.nl>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF3A711E8254 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v-7KsOaOYHHh for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sintact.nl (mail.sintact.nl [IPv6:2001:9e0:803::6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6CD911E8248 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 02:23:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C5D16; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:22:58 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.sintact.nl
Received: from mail.sintact.nl ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.sintact.nl [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vk4QvtImm7FX; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:22:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from macpro.10ww.steffann.nl (macpro.10ww.steffann.nl [37.77.56.75]) by mail.sintact.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95F4524; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:22:53 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
Subject: Re: Why /64
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806FAC25D4E@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 10:22:53 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1E6580AB-7010-4E45-8903-6126E82A9772@steffann.nl>
References: <20131021224346.32495.64932.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52695DDE.70909@gont.com.ar> <526AA24F.6010609@gmail.com> <526AACA5.7090604@si6networks.com> <E0F0D3DE-D31B-4CC2-9384-DFEBCCB8F557@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|9f43bef2fe7433173858819bd0eeee2dp9OKUJ03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|E0F0D3DE-D31B-4CC2-9384-DFEBCCB8F557@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <526AC8AF.4060608@si6networks.com> <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553BA7B978@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr0q2dY041CMarFfTZZx6=qHC-eJ+74qgiHP-dt7+ga7yg@mail.gmail.com> <526CDC59.4070204@massar.ch> <526D3706.5070409@alvarezp.ods.org> <526E1F5A.2070901@massar.ch> <3135C2851EB6764BACEF35D8B495596806FAC25D4E@MOPESMBX01.eu.thmulti.com>
To: Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
Cc: "<ipv6@ietf.org>" <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:23:30 -0000

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. 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