Chiming in as a consumer... [the views represented are 100% my own, individual, consumer perspective] I'm a consumer of wireless service. I hear people engaged in wireless networks saying things like "Prefix delegation isn't till 3GPP release 10; the best a device can do till then is assume that they have the prefix advertised by the RA" and "wireless connections will use a single stack -- either IPv4 or IPv6 but not both". I sure wish I could use wireless as a backup for my home network if I lose my wireline connections. Of course, with the devices I have (my smart phone for everyday use; I'm too cheap to go out and get an additional wireless service or specialized data-only device), I'd need to use "tethering" which is limited to something like 3 devices, that all have to use Wi-Fi. I have more than 3 devices, and not all Wi-Fi, so what I'd probably do is use this Wi-Fi/Ethernet bridge I have lying around the house (I've used it at various times to provide Wi-Fi connectivity to devices that don't support Wi-Fi), and plug the Ethernet side of that into the WAN port of a rout er. That router looks like a single device from a tethering perspective, and I can do whatever I want behind it, without, um, permission from anyone else. But when (single stack) IPv6 gets offered on that tether, that router will only have a single /128 address. Hmm.
I'm also a consumer of 2 wireline broadband connections. Each has its own router. The routers are totally mine. Neither router is supplied by the associated provider (routers aren't even an option from either provider). They have no connection to each other (because I buy cheap off-the-shelf consumer stuff, and cheap consumer stuff does nothing for multihoming today). Both broadband connections currently support 6rd. From one, I end up with a /64. From the other I end up with a /60. I've dedicated one of my wireline services to me (the low bandwidth one with the /60), and the other one (the high bandwidth with a /64) is for me and everyone else in my family and the rest of my home network. The printer is connected to the 2nd, so I have to switch my Wi-Fi connection to the other when I want to print. How annoying. I have, in the past, put other routers behind the general home network connection (the one from the /64 provider), like when I needed a Wi-Fi WEP connection for an ancient TiVo, and, well, for other reasons. I have various cheap routers lying around the house, so I prefer to just use them when the need strikes, rather than go and get a new box that can do it all. With IPv6, I will need new routers, but I'll be going cheap on them, too. None of the apps behind the 2nd router are sensitive to dual NAT, so there's no need to do anything other than put them on separate subnets. All cheap routers support that, and it's pretty easy. Much easier than m aking them bridged APs (which has often caused mysterious DNS and disappearing IPv4 connectivity issues that I never bothered figuring out since dual NAT worked just fine). My reasons for having 2 connections aren't all that geeky. My family's Netflix and MMORPG gaming addictions were impacting my ability to work at home, by using up all the bandwidth. As my family's home networking "guru", knew I had choices of doing QoS (which would make me happy but not them, and require a more expensive router that could do QoS -- I know this because I've seen those boxes at Fry's that say they do QoS), having a single connection with more bandwidth, or adding a 2nd connection with more bandwidth. I chose to get a 2nd connection, because it wasn't that costly and provided me with redundancy, in this era of Internet connectivity as a need rather than a want. I know I'm not alone in subscribing to multiple broadband services -- several of my neighbors also work at home (or run businesses from their home) and have redundancy. I don't know how long the lack of wireless PD delegation will exist, or how long my wireline IPv6 will be offered via 6rd. All I know is, this is my world as it currently exists. Y'all know that "Serenity Prayer" about accepting that which you cannot change, having the courage to change what you can, and the wisdom to know the difference? Well, I accept that I can't change those access networks. I get what they give me, and I don't hold my breath waiting for them to change. But I *can* change the devices in my home network. As long as I don't have to pay a lot to do so. Anyway, I'd really like it if I could get ISP-provided IPv6 working behind that router that I describe on the wireless connection (the one that will get a single-stack /128 address behind the tethering device -- and I think I'd rather do IPv6 to IPv6 Internet endpoints, even if it is NAT66 on the router, rather than go through NAT64 somewhere; and I really don't want to do "NAT464" to get to IPv4 endpoints behind a single-stack IPv6 connection). I'd also like to do IPv6 to IPv6 endpoints from behind a 2nd router behind my general-purpose home network router (the one that gets a /64 from 6rd). Right now, I can't, AFAIK. Since I have all of these connections, it would be nice if I didn't have to physically move between them, but could have them connected together and just configure a few simple choices to make things work (the way *I* want them to work -- so I do expect some simple configuration). Getting my multihoming working is more of a "nice to have" right now, though, since I've got to keep IPv4 working right, and I don't see anything being done to solve IPv4 multihoming. I thinks that's something that I won't bother trying to change. The cascaded router scenario (in the tethered single-stack wireless network and in my general purpose home network) works today with IPv4. But not with IPv6. That's a problem. The /64 is very real in both of those cases, and breath-holding or crying about it just doesn't seem to be a very effective approach. That's my consumer wish list. Thanks for listening. Maybe I'll put this in my letter to Santa. Barbara > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Randy Turner > Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 1:58 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [homenet] prefix assignment on home networks > > > I'm not against one or more /64 bit prefixes for a home net, if everyone else > (including the ISPs) think that home networks should be able to scale up to > 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 hosts, I'm completely on board. It's not my > resource, so I'll take all they give me. :) It would be nice to have an > AT&T, > Verizon, or some other major provider chime in to say they're on board with > the assumptions we're making. Maybe they already have, I've been away > from the list for awhile, or maybe they've indicated this allocation strategy > in > some other forum. I'm old school and I'm not used to having publicly > routable address space to burn. > > Randy > > On Nov 14, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Andrew McGregor wrote: > > > I have a /48 at home, on a retail ISP, right now. I know, one data point > > does > not a trend make, but it is a proof by example that some ISP is doing that. > > > > Andrew > > > > On 15/11/2012, at 6:27 AM, Randy Turner <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> > >> Have their been any ISPs that have come forward to discuss their > consumer IPv6 allocation plans? I don't think we should wrap ourselves > around a model that says, "yeah, we need multiple /64s for consumers > because that's the way a particular protocol works (SLAAC). Maybe we need > another method. One /64 for a home network seems like overkill regarding > address space utilization -- A /32 would be overkill. I know some folks think > we have more address space than we'll ever use, but gee.... > >> > >> Randy > >> > >> > >> On Nov 14, 2012, at 7:07 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > >> > >>> On Nov 14, 2012, at 3:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter > <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>> On 14/11/2012 02:34, Randy Turner wrote: > >>>>> I was thinking that, in an effort to reduce scope to something we can > deal with for now, that a /64 would be big enough > >>>> > >>>> It simply isn't, because it doesn't allow subnetting in the > home/car/small office or whatever. > >>> > >>> I don't see the point in working on the /64 case-if that's all we're > >>> trying > to accomplish, we've already accomplished it. The interesting work > Homenet is doing is in fact trying to solve the prefix distribution and > automatic setup problem. It's true that this is a hard problem. It's also > true > that if we don't specify a solution, people will attempt to solve it in their > own > ways. And if they do that, we will wind up in the situation that Jim found > himself in with his broken box with its own built-in DHCP server. > >>> > >>> BTW, a little more on that topic: the reason that two DHCP servers on > the same wire broke Jim's network in a flaky way is that IPv4 doesn't handle > the multi-homing case. IPv6 deliberately places the multi-homing case in- > scope. This creates a bit of a problem for legacy apps that do not support > multi-homing, but it also creates the winning situation that if one device is > advertising a provisioning domain that doesn't work, applications that do > correctly handle multi-homing will simply use a different provisioning > domain. > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> homenet mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> homenet mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
