[signa11]

in was referring to op’s insinuation (i think) about ipv6 address space being large enough to not warrant usage of nat.

[lxgr]

Are you disagreeing that it's large enough?

The only instances of IPv6 NAT I've seen are situations like "I have only a single IPv6 address available but need to run a VM/a Wi-Fi hotspot/...", and arguably that's a completely different matter than "I have full control over my network, but I simply can't request the address space I need because there's none left".

Practically, I've not encountered it myself. I was recently surprised to learn that even when tethering from my iPhone, client devices receive a public IPv6, so apparently mobile networks assign more than an /128 address to even single-line customers.

On fixed-line IPv6, I've also never encountered any less than an /64 network.

[patrakov]

/64 is not enough if you need to run two networks (e.g., a guest WiFi in addition to the main one). And yet, here in the Philippines, an IPv6 subnet larger than /64 is an enterprise-only feature that is denied to home users.

[growse]

This is a similar complaint to "I can't run a server from home because my ISP wont give me a static IP".

Sure, it's a problem, but not one with the protocol.

[megous]

You can subnet /64. You'll just lose SLAAC. (+ some idiocy around some devices that refuse to implement both DHCPv6 and manual setting of IPv6 addresses)

[zekica]

RIPE-738 (European RIR's address allocation and assignment policy) says that home users should get at least /56.

[jlokier]

That's interesting. I've been tethering for years using Android phones, and using a 4G standalone router. I've never seen a client be allocated any IPv6 address in either case. I know the phone gets one for itself, but I don't think the router does. Looking at the phone's IP address status, it is given a non-public IPv4 by the mobile network (so CGNAT if it uses it), and what looks like a single IPv6 by the mobile network.