In message <op.x1hpayv0tfh...@rbeam.xactional.com>, "Ricky Beam" writes: > On Wed, 08 Jul 2015 22:49:17 -0400, Karl Auer <ka...@biplane.com.au> wrote: > > You, we, all of us have to stop using the present to limit the future. > > What IS should not be used to define what SHOULD BE. > > > > What people NOW HAVE in their homes should not be used to dictate to > > them what they CAN HAVE in their homes, which is what you do when you > > provide them only with non-globally-routable address space (IPv4 NAT), > > or too few subnets (IPv6 /56) to name just two examples. > > Talking about IPv6, we aren't carving a limit in granite. 99.99999% of > home networks currently have no need for multiple networks, and thus, > don't ask for anything more; they get a single /64 prefix. If tomorrow > they need more, set the hint to 60 and they get a /60. Need more, ask for > 56... CURRENTLY, providers have their DHCP server(s) set to a limit of 56. > But that's simply a number in a config file; it can be changed as easily > as it was set the first time. (source pool size and other infrastructure > aside.) It's just like the escalation of speeds: as the need for it rises, > it becomes available. (in general, at least)
I already have 3 /64's hanging off a WNDR3700 (one for each of the wireless networks and one for the wired). If I turn on the second ssid's for each radio that would be 5. As for a customer getting a ISP's to increase the /56 PD to a /52 or a /48 I just don't see that happening. It will either require custom configuration for the customer or going back to the RIR and asking for a bigger allocation based on moving from /56 to /52 or /48 for all customers. You then have to manage the transition. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
