[arin-discuss] IPv6 End User Assignments

[Eric Windisch]

>
>> To me, the logical deployment seems to provide a /128
>> address, and route a /64, /56, or /48 into that.
> Even more complicated!
> Why not keep it simple and just assign each customer a
> /48. Or if you know that you are in risk of an HD ratio
> problem then give consumer customers a /56.

It is "just" a /48 assignment, but it is routed through a /128, as  
opposed to bridged to the customer.  If the traffic was bridged, there  
certainly wouldn't be a whole lot of subnetting happening at the  
residential level because Layer-3 switches aren't very affordable.

Do you really want to have the CPE be nothing but a switch?  Surely,  
it would be simple, and it would allow customers to operate with no  
more equipment than they already own.   However, it would come at a  
huge expense to the customer's functionality.   The methodology of  
routing through a /128 would be quite similar to how IPv4 is being  
deployed, except that it would now be visible on the residential  
customer's router as it is already on commercial  IPv4 deployments.

If you are afraid of changing the methodology, I don't see why you  
would want to take the ability of a customer to have a router,  
something that customers are already familiar with owning and  
installing, even at a residential level, and forcing them to have  
nothing more complicated than a switch?

I know that Layer-3 switching can nullify much of my argument here,  
and perhaps that is both a good thing and a reason not to bother with  
properly routing subnets into the CPE.   Maybe in the 5 or 10 year  
plan, this will be an affordable option and preferable on the  
residential level?   Right now, though, this is nothing more than a  
dream (but then again, so are residential IPv6 deployments)

Regards,
Eric Windisch