| Dynamic IPv6 For those who know a little about IPv6 there is a massive amount of addresses that in theory would allow everyone to have many addresses.
However resource shortages are a big money maker for ISPs. They switch to IPv6 and I would not be surprised to see us getting 1 dynamic IPv6 address so statics can be sold for a premium. |
|
cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:5 Reviews:
 ·AT&T Southeast
| IPv6 has no concept of NAT, so they cannot do that. And RIRs will look upon those that try with scorn. (eg. hint at taking away their allocations, and refuse to give them any more.) A single /64 is the smallest they could provide without breaking things. |
|
| Actually the smallest allocation for a end site is a /48. There has been a push to make it a smaller /56 for end sites. |
|
| reply to cramer
said by cramer:IPv6 has no concept of NAT, so they cannot do that. And RIRs will look upon those that try with scorn. (eg. hint at taking away their allocations, and refuse to give them any more.) A single /64 is the smallest they could provide without breaking things.
Comcast is testing IPv6 to a limited market right now, and they are only providing 1 IPv6 address to begin with (/128), and only allowing customers within that market if they are using a preferred OS(Win 7/OSX 10.7) attached directly to the cable modem(no routers). |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | said by zammyzam :Comcast is testing IPv6 to a limited market right now, and they are only providing 1 IPv6 address to begin with (/128), and only allowing customers within that market if they are using a preferred OS(Win 7/OSX 10.7) attached directly to the cable modem(no routers).
Yes, they've made it pretty clear they'll be doing testing in multiple phases. The first phase is directly connected systems; as in no router. They have a preferred OS list because of the need for a DHCPv6 client and the listed OS's are the only OS's they "support" and which have DHCPv6 support. Any other OS with a DHCPv6 client not on the list would work fine as well. The second phase will be for users with a router and one or more systems behind it. |
|
brad
join:2007-09-06
Etobicoke, ON | reply to mrdon213
said by mrdon213:Actually the smallest allocation for a end site is a /48. There has been a push to make it a smaller /56 for end sites.
That hasn't been true for quite some time even before RFC6177 was published. The minimum recommended allocation is a /64 although a larger allocation of /60 or even /56 will be more common. |
|
cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:5 Reviews:
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to mrdon213
That may be true for allocations from a regional registry, but there are no such "laws" requiring ISPs hand out such large blocks to customers -- esp. residential customers. A /64 is the smallest block they can give a network without breaking a basic part of IPv6 (SLAAC -- StateLess Address AutoConfiguration.) [as stupid as it is, millions of people will be (are) using it.]
The Comcast testing has had a great deal of debate. While a /60 (16 /64 networks) would be more than enough for all but the most complex "home" network, hardware routing isn't nibble aligned. So /56 (256 /64's) will likely be the path for those who need more than one LAN.
Handing out /48's to every grandmother with a DSL line is such a horrific mismanagement of space, in a few years we'd be back in the same boat we're trying to get out of today. A /48 is 65536 /64 networks. I could assign a /64 to every ethernet port in my house and still not use 0.1% of that much space -- and I'm counting every switch port, broken crap, stuff I've not used in years (and likely never will), and a lot of stuff that will never have IPv6 capability. Further, a /48 minimum would only increase the available internet by a factor of 65,536 (2^16); given how quickly we're using IPv4, the inherent inefficiencies of networking, and the pervasive it's-so-huge-we'll-never-use-it-up attitude, we'll need to have IPv6++ in committee in about 2 years. |
|
