wrote: > To me it just seems like a crazy idea of assigning a /64 > subnet (that can otherwise fulfill requirements of > 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 hosts) to a residential CPE > which today uses at the max 5-10 IPv4 addresses on their > LANs. It is, obviously, wise to remember that even as existing v4 customers deploy v6, the size of their networks isn't going to necessarily grow ten-fold by them doing so. In the field, we've seen customers concerned about not deploying v6 because they cannot find a decent firewall which will support v6 NAT (that's right, NAT66 - who'da thought with v6 aplenty?) without them having to test for months or years. Yes, there are solutions out there already, but support is still spotty when compared to v4. So if users aren't going to suddenly be assigning public v6 addresses to their printers anytime soon, and they won't be rampantly scaling up network devices just because they suddenly got a /56 or /48, it's interesting that we expect them to jump from using 1000 v4 addresses, for example, to billions with v6, in one step. But that argument is probably too simplistic :-). > I think because we have been working with IPv4 and have > been really careful about not wasting IPs due to the > limited address space, maybe its that same mindset which > makes me uncomfortable looking at multiple /64s going to > a single DSL end-customer etc. :) On the other hand, perhaps all the suffering we have gone through with v4 should tell us something about how to "spend" v6. v4 projections, during the "experiment", were based on trends of the day. They simply couldn't have predicted that 32 bits in v4 wouldn't be enough a few decades later. v6 projections today, for the most part, are based on "current" trends in most networks. Who knows what will happen 2, 3 or 4 decades from now that could simply blow our trends of today out the water? But again, I suppose this argument is too simplistic :-). Cheers, Mark.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.