nanog mailing list archives
Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet () consulintel es>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:14:13 +0600
And then next you can say ok, so /32 bits is big enough for your home, so let's change it again, kill autoconfiguration, ask existing IPv6 users to redo their addressing plans, renumber, etc., and use all the rest of the bits for routing ? And so on, of course, where is the limit ? You should propose this to 6man at the IETF. You're not getting it. Autoconfiguration is a very good feature. More bits for the user to subnet means more business for smart ISPs who don't want to sell addresses but instead services and applications much more easier to deploy thanks to a uniform /48 ways to address all end sites. Regards, Jordi
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at> Reply-To: <matthew () matthew at> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:04:17 -0700 To: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> Cc: nanog list <nanog () nanog org> Subject: Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Owen DeLong wrote:Well, wouldn't it be better if the provider simply issued enough space to make NAT66 unnecessary?The thing is, IPv6 is 128 bits of address space, so a /64 for your home *really* should be enough to have >1 machine online at a time. It'll be a lot easier to change the subnetting rules inside small networks, and we all know that DHCPv6 is far superior to SAA for almost all cases, but especially home users who need things like their DNS entries set up for them by their "router". Matthew Kaufman
********************************************** The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Current thread:
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course, (continued)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Owen DeLong (Jul 24)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Owen DeLong (Jul 24)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Karl Auer (Jul 24)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Mark Smith (Jul 29)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Owen DeLong (Jul 29)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Jens Link (Jul 25)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Jens Link (Jul 25)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Joe Maimon (Jul 22)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Marco Hogewoning (Jul 23)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Matthew Kaufman (Jul 23)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (Jul 23)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Matthew Kaufman (Jul 23)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course JORDI PALET MARTINEZ (Jul 23)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course todd glassey (Jul 23)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course sthaug (Jul 23)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Matthew Kaufman (Jul 23)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Mark Smith (Jul 23)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Fred Baker (Jul 23)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Owen DeLong (Jul 24)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Karl Auer (Jul 23)
- Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course Marco Hogewoning (Jul 23)