[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: new version of draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03.txt
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:04:39 -0800
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com> wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2007, at 17:13, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > On 2007-12-05 09:11, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > ...
> >> So I'd like to see /60 for consumers and /48 for anyone who
> >> feels /60 isn't enough.
> >
> > Are you sure that 16 subnets is enough for a large family house with
> > entertainment, building services, and home office all running on
> > various technologies? I'm not, but I'm pretty sure /56 is enough.
>
> I'm pretty sure /60 isn't big enough over the foreseeable future.
> I'm *also* not sure that /56 is big enough. I'm concerned about a
> problem I can see arising in a world of zero-configuration IPv6
> router/firewalls that implement "CPE simple security" by default, and
> they're scattered around the interior of residential networks, i.e.
> all over inside people's homes— possibly because they are integrated
> into consumer devices that require expert users to turn them off.
>
> I'm foreseeing these devices negotiating with one another what
> subnets to advertise in much the same way that Appletalk routers once
> did— like back in the old hellish days when people could just buy
> routers, plug them together and they'd just work without people
> having to configure them with all kinds of arcane code numbers.
>
And I think that is one of the key things IPv6 should achieve. More
"modern" protocols than IPv4, like IPX and Appletalk (late 80s
protocols), set an example for how easy IPv6 should be to use and
operate. If IPv6 doesn't meet or exceed the capabilities of those
protocols, then the designers and operators of the Internet have failed
their end-users - the designers and operators parents, sisters,
brothers etc. - those people who don't care how it works, they just
want it to work, and want to not have to fiddle with it to get it to
work.
For those who worry about /48s being "wasteful", and are therefore
advocating /56s or longer, would you also worry about wasting sand if
you lived in a desert, or water if you lived in a rainforest?
Address conservation in IPv4 is quite valid, as it is a significantly
limited resource ("water in a desert"). It isn't justified in IPv6 when
the address space is 2^96 times bigger. Convenience of use can and
should trump the necessity of conservation.
Regards,
Mark.