<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>I use z-wave home automation technology in my home. it's not IP but it's conceivable that a like ipv6 based technology will exist in the future. I currently have a addressable device in every power point socket ,every down light, every light switch , multiple temperature sensors throughout ,every blind , every door PIR's in every room, smoke detectors, water leak detectors and the aircon.</div><div><br></div><div>IPv4 has served us for 25ish years in the mainstream. what will we have in 2050. Thats without going into all the allocation systems and protocol rules besides. </div><div><br></div><div>I think the current recommendations are on target. </div><div><br></div><div>matt</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br>On 2 Jul 2014, at 9:52 pm, Shannon Gernyi <<a href="mailto:shannon.gernyi@xsv.com.au">shannon.gernyi@xsv.com.au</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><meta name="Generator" content="Z-Push"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><span style="font-size: 11pt"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"><div><br></div><div>Hi Joe,</div><div><br></div><div>Excuse my brevity.</div><div><br></div><div>A lot of the IPv6 features rely on one having a /64 subnet. SLAAC (for all intents, a necessity at home) relies on the subnet being a /64 for one, due to the way local addresses are generated, for example.</div><div><br></div><div>Happy to be corrected on this by anyone smarter than yours truly :)</div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:9px;color:#575757">Sent from my Samsung GALAXY S5 on the Telstra 4G network</div></div><div></div><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>From: Joseph Goldman <joe@apcs.com.au> <br>Date:2014/07/02 21:32 (GMT+10:00) <br>To: <a href="mailto:ausnog@lists.ausnog.net">ausnog@lists.ausnog.net</a> <br>Subject: Re: [AusNOG] RFC7278 - "Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link" <br><br></joe@apcs.com.au></span>Hi Mark,<br><br> Going a bit off-topic, towards IPv6 in general as I'm still catching <br>up on the standards of use for IPv6, but I am yet to understand the <br>reason for recommendations to give such large blocks to customers?<br><br> You talk about a /64 being handed out to customers, even this I found <br>exceptionally large for a home, which even with smart devices becoming <br>the norm would you say its likely to reach 100 needed IP's? let alone <br>thousands?<br><br> You go on to say other RFC's are even trying to recommend /56's, or <br>even /48 to be better by your own personal opinion. Why so large? Why <br>not /96's or even smaller?<br><br> I'm in no way knocking the idea, I am genuinely curious as to the <br>reasons behind the recommendations.<br><br>Thanks in advance!<br>Joe<br><br>On 02/07/14 21:14, Mark ZZZ Smith wrote:<br>> Hi,<br>><br>> The following recently published RFC might be of interest to people on this list.<br>><br>> RFC7278 - "Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link"<br>><br>> <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7278">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7278</a><br>><br>> Earlier versions of the 3GPP standards (i.e., basically mobile phone data standards) didn't recognise or realise that smartphones would also be able to temporarily become IP routers/Wifi hotspots, and therefore didn't specify DHCPv6-PD. This RFC describes how to take a /64 from the phone to carrier link and use it/share it with the phone's Wifi LAN interface when the phone is acting as an IPv6 router. It may seem a bit obscure, however it provides some examples of how IPv6's capabilities can be used to novelly overcome this limitation. It certainly isn't a recommendation to give a customer a single /64 rather than many of them (i.e., as per RFC6177, a /56, or better IMO, a /48 as per the considerations in RFC3177), but it does show how that can be worked around with some limitations.<br>><br>> Regards,<br>> Mark.<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> AusNOG mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br>> <a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>AusNOG mailing list<br><a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a><br><a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a><br></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>AusNOG mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net">AusNOG@lists.ausnog.net</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog">http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>