[address-policy-wg] IPv6 Policy Clarification - Initial allocation criteria "c)"

Gert Doering wrote:

>Hi,
>
>On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 11:29:21PM +0200, Hans Petter Holen wrote:
>  
>
>>>Again, this seems to exclude mobile operators who may only want to assign 
>>>/64s to their customers' handsets...
>>>      
>>>
>>I dont se how  that assumption can be made. My mobile handset is 
>>connected to the public internet so that I can get updated exchange 
>>rates and read my email trough IMAP and so on.
>>
>>(and not trough NAT as my mobile operator has offered my the choice of 
>>not using NAT.)
>>
>>Iff this had been IPv6 and Iff Bluetooth had worked seemlessly on my 
>>other toys they could have had seemless access to the internet also.
>>    
>>
>
>Which would work fine with a /64 - "one big LAN with enough IPs"...
>
>This yields two questions:
>
> - is it likely that we'll see mobile handsets that provide connectivity
>   to *two* (or more) independent IPv6 LAN networks?   
>  
>
Yes - as I mentioned during the last RIPE meeting we are now seeing 
"Mobile broadband" products based on UMTS or EDGE and priced like xDSL 
in Norway  - so if you are in a city and out of DSL coverage you can go 
mobile.

In other words I do not think you can make the desicion on how many 
networks you need based on the transport technology - but there need to 
be some other cirteria.

>   Like "bluetooth and WLAN, and not bridged"?
>
> - would a /60 suffice?
>  
>
My feeling today is that in most cases a /64 will be sufficient for any 
*personal* network and going to /63 or /62 for advanced homes - but if I 
am to look 100 years into the future it is harder to say.

Hans Petter