Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course

[Leo Bicknell <bicknell () ufp org>]

In a message written on Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 09:13:54AM +0100, Matthew Walster wrote:
> On 30 July 2010 08:32, Jeroen Massar <jeroen () unfix org> wrote:
> > On 2010-07-30 09:27, Matthew Walster wrote:
> > > On 29 July 2010 18:08, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda () icann org> wrote:
> > > With all due respect, I can't see it. Why would a home user need
> > > multiple subnets?
> >
> > * Wireless
> > * Wired
> > * DMZ
> >
> > Those three I see a lot at various people's places.
>
> I have *never* seen those three security zones separated outside of a
> business or the house of a nerd who runs his own Linux distro
> (Smoothwall etc). Furthermore, you're then pushing all that traffic
> into a $30 router which almost guaranteed will be underpowered.

I know of at least one nationwide DSL provider that ships (with
higher end products) a WiFi router with a single checkbox for "guest
network", which provides a captive portal style guest WiFi network
for folks who visit your house.  The same box has had for years a
"DMZ" function for your gaming console/machine.

The guest network is a separate subnet.  The DMZ today is not, it's
the wierd IPv4 pass-through thing many NAT boxes do to make weird
games work.

Still, it's all in a box thats given away for free by an ISP to a
new signup; and with IPv6 having more addresses I see no reason
each might not be its own subnet in 5-10 more years when IPv6 has
taken hold.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell () ufp org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/

Attachment: _bin
Description: