nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 end user addressing
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:03:59 -0700
On Aug 10, 2011, at 6:57 AM, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On 2011-08-10 15:02 , Owen DeLong wrote: [..]Why do I want my appliance network's multicast packets getting tossed around on the guest wireless?Even wikipedia knows the answer to that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IGMP_snooping which is the first hit for IGMP snooping, which is generally a feature that is present in the better (and thus more expensive) switching gear (and thus probably not present in every home, but those homes probably also don't care about that).
That would be the answer to why I DON'T want that happening, but, why would I WANT it to happen when, as you said, the better and more appropriate solution is to route. Unless you have some benefit to offer from NOT Routing, I stand by my statement.
Granted, routing is the better and more appropriate way to isolate these kind of packets and definitely more appropriate for broadcast nastyness (mDNS is such a nice one there too...). That said, /56 or /48 to the home should be what is happening.
That said, /48 to the home should be what is happening, and /56 is a better compromise than anything smaller.
The whole point of settling on a single prefix btw is so that networks can at least keep the same numbering plan when they switch from one PA prefix to another.
That would be nice as well, but, unfortunately, it is obvious at this point that some ISPs will unfortunately refuse to give home users /48s.
Greets, Jeroen PS: the more power to your kids if they can sniff the network for your 'adult content', decode it, and then actually watch it (though if they are technically inclined actually not too difficult, but heck, is that not where crypto comes into play, as when they can pull that off on your kiddienetwork they can also just plug something into the kiddie-'adult content'-network and sniff it off there... something with 802.1x comes to mind to solve that step.
The chances of the average amplifier and television supporting that level of encryption in a way that the hypothetical kids in this situation would be unable to decrypt a stream that does work between the source and the television and amplifier are pretty slim IMHO. Heck, I can't even get any one of those devices to speak IPv6 yet, let alone all of them and with cryptography to boot. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Owen DeLong (Aug 09)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Valdis . Kletnieks (Aug 09)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Owen DeLong (Aug 09)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Mark Andrews (Aug 09)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Mohacsi Janos (Aug 09)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Owen DeLong (Aug 09)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Alexander Harrowell (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Owen DeLong (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Jeroen Massar (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Alexander Harrowell (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Owen DeLong (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Jeff Wheeler (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Owen DeLong (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Jeff Wheeler (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Mark Andrews (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Jeff Wheeler (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Owen DeLong (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Owen DeLong (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing William Herrin (Aug 10)
- Re: IPv6 end user addressing Owen DeLong (Aug 10)
- RE: IPv6 end user addressing Jamie Bowden (Aug 11)