Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]

[Mark Andrews <Mark_Andrews () isc org>]

In message <op.uoweo8dxtfhldh () rbeam xactional com>, "Ricky Beam" writes:
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:25:44 -0500, Iljitsch van Beijnum  
> <iljitsch () muada com> wrote:
> > On 5 feb 2009, at 1:16, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> > > I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet, just  
> > > an IP address.  If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL & Cable  
> > > modem, then we may very well be recreating the same problem.
> >
> > IPv4 thinking.
> >
> > A single /64 isn't enough for a home user, because their gateway is a  
> > router and needs a different prefix at both sides. Users may also want  
> > to subnet their own network. So they need at least something like a /60.
>
> This is not a "maybe", Mr. Gilmore.  It's repeating the same mistakes of  
> IPv4.
>
> Mr. van B, your comments would be laughable if they weren't so absurdly  
> horrific.  I've lived quite productively behind a single IPv4 address for  
> nearly 15 years.  I've run 1000 user networks that only used one IPv4  
> address for all of them. 

        Good for you.  You don't need what NAT breaks.

        The rest of us are sick and tired of a artificially crippled
        network that NAT brings and all the additional costs
        associated with trying to talk with someone behind a NAT.

> I have 2 private /24's using a single public  
> IPv4 address right now -- as they have been for 6+ years.  Yet, in the new  
> order, you're telling me I need 18 billion, billion addresses to cover 2  
> laptops, a Wii, 3 tivos, a router, and an access point?  Did we suddenly  
> jump 20 years into the past?  This is the exact same bull**** as the /8  
> allocations in the early days of IPv4.  The idea of the "connected home"  
> is still nowhere near *that* connected; no matter how many toys you have  
> in your bathroom, it doesn't need a /96 of it's own. (which is an entire  
> IPv4 of it's own.)

        No it doesn't need that many address.  No one has ever said
        that it does.

        Does it really matter that 64 bits are set aside for the local
        part of the IPv6 address as long as there is enough address space
        for everyone to get the networks they need?
        
        By your own admission it does need multiple networks however.
        The address allocation policies are design to give everyone the
        networks that they need.
 
> Why do people avoid and resist IPv6... because it was designed with blind  
> ignorance of the history of IPv4's mistakes (and how we *all* run our IPv4  
> networks.)  Dooming us to repeating ALL those mistakes again.  Exhibit A:  
> With IPv6 Address Autoconfiguration (tm) (patent pending), you don't need  
> DHCP. *face plant* 

        So all of us running IPv6 networks using stateless autoconf
        are using something that does not work?

        BTW stateless autoconf and DHCP are complementry technologies.

> The IPv4 mistake you've NOT learned from here is  
> "rarp".  DCHP does far more than tell a host was address it should use.  
> (yes, I've called for the IPng WG member's execution, reanimation, and  
> re-execution, several times.)
>
> --Ricky
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: Mark_Andrews () isc org