In message <00e801d13b96$873e1120$95ba3360$@gmail.com>, "Chuck Church" writes: > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 7:46 PM > To: Chuck Church <chuckchu...@gmail.com> > Cc: 'Matthew Petach' <mpet...@netflight.com>; 'North American Network > Operators' Group' <nanog@nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Nat > > > >I have a single CPE router and 3 /64's in use. One for each of the > wireless SSID's and one for the wired network. This is the default for > homenet devices. A single /64 means you >have to bridge all the traffic. > > >A single /64 has never been enough and it is time to grind that myth into > the ground. ISP's that say a single /64 is enough are clueless. > > Mark, > > I agree that a /48 or /56 being reserved for business > customers/sites is reasonable. But for residential use, I'm having a hard > time believing multi-subnet home networks are even remotely common outside > of networking folk such as the NANOG members. A lot of recent IPv4 devices > such as smart TVs have the ability to auto-discover things they can talk to > on the network. If we start segmenting our home networks to keep toasters > from talking to thermostats, doesn't this end up meaning your average home > user will need to be proficient in writing FW rules? Bridging an entire > house network isn't that bad.
So *you* think the ISPs should *dictate* how a user internally splits up their network? There is NO technical reason to NOT give a customer multiple subnets. Every technology supports multiple prefixes. Even with 6rd you *can* give the user multiple subnets. It's only lazyness (or purchasing incompetence if the BR doesn't support multiple domains) that results in ISP's handing out single subnets over 6rd. > Chuck > -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
