Carsten Bormann wrote:
For now: Reserve a /64 for your own allocations (SAA), then hand out
half of what you have (i.e., of a /56 for the first CPE, so a /57) to
the first asker, then a /58, then a /59 etc. The first asker (nested
CPE) has a /57, reserves a /64 for itself (SAA), hands out a /58 to its
first child (double-nested CPE), then a /59.
This algorithm restricts width plus depth to 8 (64 - 56), which is
probably fine for most residential applications.
This makes a lot of assumptions that may not hold true and restricts
home devices to treating IPv6 similar to how they treat IPv4. It's not
scalable and it doesn't promote usage of multiple segments per device.
The restriction is actually 6 if you make a more sane assumption of /61
per device and not /64. Standard CPE's can support multiple wireless
networks and Ethernet segments. An ISP might divide up in a provided
CPE, for example, wireless, data, voice, and video (which still needs
unicast in addition to multicast). The netgear I configured last night
for a customer supports 4 wireless networks plus ethernet.
The probabilistic aspect (FCFS) may cause you cognitive dissonance, but
little technical problem.
(Something that could be said about many of the "I grew up on IPv4 so I
don't understand IPv6" postings here.)
I have little trouble with understanding IPv6, but I do have issues with
the current state of it both in standards and in implementations. FCFS
only works if home routers continue to work similar to the way they do.
What if the ISP only gave a /60?
Don't do that then!
(http://www.jargondb.org/glossary/dont-do-that-then)
Really, /56 for everyone is the only way back to an Internet.
See, that's where we disagree. Better standards is the only way back to
the Internet. Solving all problems from end to end in diverse networks
is the way back to the Internet. /56 is arbitrary. Making assumptions
about how a network will be restricts the Internet.
Jack
