One of the things that I find myself wondering is whether "home" users will need to establish VPNs to allow remote devices to access things in their "homes". And especially whether those remote devices will be single devices or whether they will be on remote subnets. This would imply a need for more delegation levels within a "home" network. Architecturally speaking, I don't like VPNs. I'd much rather that hosts and apps be able to have addresses that are anywhere in the network and be able to access hosts and networks elsewhere using authentication not tied to source address. But until we find better ways of protecting networks and hosts, I don't think we should throw away use of the VPN as a tool for authenticating remote devices to home networks. Which again, means not overly constraining the number of delegation levels available to home networks. > It still leaves open the question of whether a /48 is too much, i.e. too > many subnets and/or too many levels of aggregation. If a /48 is not too > much, then the IETF should issue guidance that states that. If some > prefix length between /48 and /64 is OK under certain circumstances then > the IETF should issue guidance which states that. I still have not seen > any clear indication that there is a negative technical impact of > assigning a /56 per home. I think that's the wrong way to ask the question. Rather than asking "is there any reason that we know of today to not restrict the flexibility of a home network?" ask "is there any reason why this flexibility might be needed?" Keith _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf