[ppml] And as for assignments...

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "Jonathan Barker" <jonathan at qx.net>
> And to create a little controversy...
>
> For an additional 2 cents... a /46, /52, /64 - all of these are
> excessive for a home user. ... We'll probably end up assigning
> /120s to individual homes, where subnetting is likely to never
> occur, and multi-homing isn't a realistic possibility. I know with
> my current DirecTV, XBOX, PS3, Vista Media Centers at
> home all participating on my network, they do not like being in
> separate subnets.  Everything is happiest when they do not
> need to go through any sort of routing appliance to get to
> each other.

Methinks you haven't played with v6 much; a subnet is /64 except in very 
specialized cases like PTP links or loopbacks.  While it is _possible_ to do 
what you propose, you're going to lose a lot of the advantages of v6 and 
make life much more difficult for both you and your customers by doing this.

What is stopping you from giving each customer a /64?  With your /32, that 
means you can have up to 4B customers, which should be sufficient :)  Why 
bother trying to assign less?  v6 is not v4; there is no need to go to 
extreme lengths to limit subnet sizes.

> My question is - What is wrong with my logic, in that most
> people who are commenting don't think in these terms?

Whether you agree with their logic or not, the IETF has designed IPv6 to 
work with /64 host subnets, and a lot of things are difficult to impossible 
if you don't follow that model.  Even if you manage to get minimal services 
working, you're going to find a lot of bugs in vendors' implementations or 
not be able to use the more novel services if you insist on a non-standard 
subnet size.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking