Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Enhanced IP v1.4

From: Willy Tarreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 14:41:28 +0200

On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 02:33:03PM +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> > I do have IPv6 at home (a /48, waste of addressing space, I'd be fine
> > with less),
> 
> Any reason you would want less?  Any reason the ISP should give you
> less?

What I mean is that *if* the availability of /48 networks was an issue
for some ISPs, I'd be fine with less because I don't plan to deploy 64k
networks at home, though I already have ~9 around the firewall and don't
expect to go much further.

> > Maybe setting up a public list of ISPs where users don't have at least
> > a /60 by default could help, but I suspect that most of them will
> > consider that as long as their competitors are on the list there's no
> > emergency.
> 
> Exactly.  And the number of users using the list as the primary
> parameter for selecting an ISP would be close to 0.  The critical part
> is not the list, but making large enough groups of users consider IPv6
> an important parameter when selecting ISPs.

In fact the IoT trend could play a role here by letting users know that
they can remotely access their fridge and whatever stupid device they've
deployed. But the reality is the opposite : some gateway services are/will
be offered at a paid price to make these devices remotely accessible, and
the claimed security provided by this gateway will be presented as a real
benefit compared to the risks of anyone directly accessing your private
life over IPv6. So I'm not getting much hopes for the future in this area
either.

Willy