On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 22:20 +0200, Simon Oosthoek wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 07:33:10PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 19:09 +0200, Simon Oosthoek wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:23:52PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > > > > > > > Except for the fact that one will most likely get a /48, there really is > > > > not much of a difference in IPv4 versus IPv6. > > > > > > > > > > Just out of curiosity, assuming we're 15 years in the future, I'm connecting > > > my *networkbox* to an ISP and I do neighbourdiscovery, would I get a /48 > > > from my ISP (assuming it has some way of verifying my relation with them)? > > > > With current policy you should. But there is a movement of thought > > towards /56's becoming the standard. > > hmm, what's the reasoning behind the change? Is it just stingyness? > 256 subnets sounds like a lot, but if you plan to do a bit of hierarchy > underneath that, you're in trouble with only 8 bits... Yes, but if you have a large ISP's having say 100 million clients, that is 100x /48. Most of them will never ever ever use that address space. For instance at my home I also thought "I'll nicely make it route between wired and wireless and a subnet per floor", but I didn't go on with that plan as it is much easier to have 1 /64. Especially with things like samba ;) On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 22:32 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > Just a guess: Home networks probably won't need /48 networks. > > Of course, that's assuming that won't be a problem with corporate > networks getting a /48... No the /56 is only intended for "home endsites", not "business endsites". At least that is the current formulation of the proposal. On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 22:20 +0200, Simon Oosthoek wrote: > > Though it is probably easier for the ISP to just point the /48 to a > > fixed IP address on the uplink. Which is basically what SixXS does. > > But that doesn't really fit into the spirit of autoconfiguration. Autoconfiguration is handled by a client tool: AICCU. Install, configure, run & forget. We could enable DHCPv6 with PD of course (which would require that everybody installs software as it doesn't come installed + enabled per default yet), but do you really want a tool to automatically put all your hosts onto the big evil internet? IPv6 might be not so scary because scanning is almost impossible, but worms in IPv4 especially show that you don't want that to happen... Supporting DHCPv6 + PD is something which is on the list actually, just for the fun value of it. Greets, Jeroen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part