/96 isn't enough for residential IMHO. I believe residential should get a /48 just like any other end site.
The reason for /64 subnets is to enable us to move away from host-count based networks and apply a one-size fits all approach to network segmentation and get away from fragmented subnets that outgrow their prefixes.
While multiple networks per household (let alone 65,536 of them) may seem profligate today, there are future possibilities that will be hindered by stingy residential allocations and there is no actual benefit to the Internet from such conservative measures in IPv6.
It is somewhat unfortunate that APNIC has selected a pricing model which, by it's very nature encourages providers to be arbitrarily stingy with Address space.
Owen
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 16, 2011, at 3:53, "Terence Zhang YH" zhangyinghao@cnnic.cn wrote:
Hi,
I don't know exactly the logic behind /64, but if you argue that /96 is enough for residential,
people can also argue 64bits or even 32bits is also more than enough for service network subnets,
in addition to that, the potential growth of subnets is not huge,
but the potential growth of devices type is unpredictable.
Regards
Terence
----- Original Message -----
From: Usman Latif
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2011 4:09 PM
Subject: [sig-policy] Need to understand logic behind assigning /64 IPv6addresses
Hi,
I am trying to understand the reasoning and logic behind IETF/IANA's decision to recommend assignments of /64 addresses to residential CPEs ??
In my opinion, this would result in a lot of unnecessary wastage of IPv6 address space.
Can someone help me to point towards the drivers behind this thinking?
IMO a /96 IPv6 assignment to residential customers is more than enough.
regards
Usman
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
