nanog mailing list archives
RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]
From: "Robert D. Scott" <robert () ufl edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:19:37 -0500
Wii should not even consider developing " a cool new protocol for the Wii" that is not NAT compliant via V4 or V6. And if they do, we should elect a NANOG regular to go "POSTAL" and handle the problem. The solution to many of these networking conundrums should rest with the application people, and NOT the network people. While I am ranting, my other pet peeve are proprietary protocols that the developer cannot take another couple of hours to provide a decoder for. If you develop the protocol any of the developers at the Wireshark group would help with the decode plugin. Robert D. Scott Robert () ufl edu Senior Network Engineer 352-273-0113 Phone CNS - Network Services 352-392-2061 CNS Receptionist University of Florida 352-392-9440 FAX Florida Lambda Rail 352-294-3571 FLR NOC Gainesville, FL 32611 321-663-0421 Cell -----Original Message----- From: Sven-Haegar Koch [mailto:haegar () sdinet de] Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:11 PM To: John Osmon Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, John Osmon wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:44:58PM -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:[...] 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. 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?Thank you. Your ability to live with proxied/NATed Internet access has helped stave off the problems we're seeing now. The flip side shows up when Nintendo creates a cool new protocol for the
Wii
that requires Internet access. You Wii won't be able to participate until you teach your proxy/NAT box about the new protocol.
What's the difference to firewalling without NAT? (Noone should connect their (home) network without at least inbound filtering) There I have to wait for the firewall box to support connection tracking for the new (broken) protocol. If the end-users really get public addresses for their WII and game-PCs, do you really think they won't just open the box totally in their firewall/router and catch/create even more problems? c'ya sven -- The lights are fading out, once more...
Current thread:
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] (IPv6-MW), (continued)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] (IPv6-MW) Valdis . Kletnieks (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] (IPv6-MW) Nathan Ward (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Joe Abley (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Mikael Abrahamsson (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Joe Abley (Feb 04)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Stephen Sprunk (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Ricky Beam (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] John Osmon (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Sven-Haegar Koch (Feb 05)
- RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Robert D. Scott (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Randy Bush (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Matthew Kaufman (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Daniel Senie (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Andy Davidson (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Mohacsi Janos (Feb 09)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Mark Andrews (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] John Osmon (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Matthew Kaufman (Feb 05)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] Mark Andrews (Feb 06)
- Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)] John Osmon (Feb 05)