Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course

[todd glassey <tglassey () earthlink net>]

 On 7/23/2010 9:07 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> It is not about how many devices, it is about how many subnets, because you
> may want to keep them isolated, for many reasons.
>
> It is not just about devices consuming lots of bandwidth, it is also about
> many small sensors, actuators and so.
>
> The ISP "new" business is not just about more bandwidth but also about
> offering new services, which they can charge for. Those services are very
> difficult to deploy in NATed scenarios such as the one that we have today
> with IPv4.
>
> And I'm not saying to forget about what we have learn with DHCP, in fact
> DHCPv6 has many new and good features, but for many reasons,
> autonconfiguration is good enough, and much more simple.
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
Jordi - the real issues are in guaranteed delivery of certain
evidence-grade services and what it takes to offer those.

Todd
> > From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew () matthew at>
> > Reply-To: <matthew () matthew at>
> > Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:22:53 -0700
> > To: Jordi Palet Martínez <jordi.palet () consulintel es>
> > Cc: <nanog () nanog org>
> > Subject: Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
> >
> > JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> > > 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 ?
> > >   
> > I *really* don't understand why a /32 isn't big enough for a home. Even
> > if you insist on SAA for getting the addresses. How many IPv6 devices is
> > the guy going to plug in / attach wirelessly anyway?
> > > And so on, of course, where is the limit ? You should propose this to 6man
> > > at the IETF.
> > >   
> > The same IETF that until just a few months ago believed that DCCP and
> > SCTP would be wildly successful as new IP protocols because NATs don't
> > matter?
> > > You're not getting it. Autoconfiguration is a very good feature.
> > No, no it isn't. It goes on the list of "interesting ideas for IPv6 that
> > were good enough to be implemented, and refined (in this case as DHCP),
> > for IPv4". Insisting on SAA is basically saying "well, you know all
> > those things we learned when we deployed DHCP... lets go ahead and
> > forget them and pretend that home machine OS vendors *and* IT
> > departments are wrong.
> > > 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.
> > >   
> > I fail to see how a household, even a really big one, is going to attach
> > more bandwidth-consuming devices (which I presume is how the ISP does
> > more business) to a link with a /48 on it vs a link with a /64 on it. A
> > /64 allows more machines in your house than today's entire Internet has
> > connected. Unless you have a new plan for electric power delivery to the
> > home, there's no need to go beyond that.
> >
> > 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.