nanog mailing list archives
Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN
From: Michael Dillon <wavetossed () googlemail com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 22:26:21 -0800
In my opinion, RFC 4193 is just a bad idea and there's no benefit to it vs. GUA. Just put a good stateful firewall in front of your GUA. I mean, really, how many things do you have that don't need access to/from the internet. Maybe your printers and a couple of appliances. The rest... All those TiVOs, Laptops, Desktops, iPads, etc. all need public addresses anyway, so, why bother with the ULA?
Because the ULA addressing is free, not that hard, and provides an extra layer of protection to prevent vandals from using up your printer ink or turning your fridge on defrost during the night. And some networks will have a lot more stuff that could use an extra layer of protection like that, for instance SCADA networks.
Supplying every end site with a /48 of global address space is neither stupid or wasteful. It's a good design with some nice future-proofing and some very nice features available if people take better advantage of the capabilities offered as we move forward. Just because it's more than you can imagine using today does not mean that it is more than you will ever imagine using. I'm very happy that I have a /48 at home and I look forward to making better use of it as the Consumer Electronics vendors start to catch on that the internet is being restored to full functionality for end users.
Agreed. /48 is good for even the smallest home user living in a one bedroom apartment. They may not fully exploit it, but at the same time, they should not be treated as second class citizens when there is enough IPv6 address wealth to share around. --Michael Dillon
Current thread:
- RE: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN, (continued)
- RE: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN George Bonser (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Roland Dobbins (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Mark Smith (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Roland Dobbins (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Mark Smith (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Jan 26)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Karl Auer (Jan 26)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN eric clark (Jan 31)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Jan 31)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Michael Dillon (Jan 31)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Jan 31)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Owen DeLong (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Ray Soucy (Jan 26)
- RE: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN George Bonser (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Fernando Gont (Jan 25)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Matthew Petach (Jan 30)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Fernando Gont (Jan 30)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Matthew Petach (Jan 31)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Mikael Abrahamsson (Jan 30)
- Re: Using IPv6 with prefixes shorter than a /64 on a LAN Per Carlson (Jan 31)