Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion

[Mike Hammett <nanog () ics-il net>]

Don't confuse someone's poor design with design goals. 




----- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 
http://www.ics-il.com 



Midwest Internet Exchange 
http://www.midwest-ix.com 


----- Original Message -----

From: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht () gmail com> 
To: "Karl Auer" <kauer () biplane com au> 
Cc: "NANOG" <nanog () nanog org> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 10:48:26 PM 
Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion 

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Karl Auer <kauer () biplane com au> wrote: 
> On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 21:03 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote: 
> > I wasn't aware that residential users had (intentionally) multiple 
> > layers of routing within the home. 

No, what they often have is multiple layers of nat. I was at a hotel 
once that had plugged in 12 APs, serially, wan, to lan, to wan, to 
lan, to wan ports... because the Internet is a series of tubes, right? 

> You, we, all of us have to stop using the present to limit the future. 
> What IS should not be used to define what SHOULD BE. 
>
> What people NOW HAVE in their homes should not be used to dictate to 
> them what they CAN HAVE in their homes, which is what you do when you 
> provide them only with non-globally-routable address space (IPv4 NAT), 
> or too few subnets (IPv6 /56) to name just two examples. 
>
> Multiple layers of routing might not be what is now in the home, but it 
> doesn't take that much imagination to envision a future where there are 
> hundreds, or even thousands of separate networks in the average home, 
> some permanent, some ephemeral, and quite possibly all requiring 
> end-to-end connectivity into the wider Internet. Taking into account 
> just a few current technologies (virtual machines, car networks, 
> personal networks, guest networks, entertainment systems) and 
> fast-forwarding just a few years it's easy to imagine tens of subnets 
> being needed - so it's not much of a leap to hundreds. And if we can 
> already dimly see a future where hundreds might be needed, history tells 
> us that there will probably be applications that need thousands. 
>
> Unless of course we decide now that we don't WANT that. Then we should 
> make it hard for it to happen by applying entirely arbitrary brakes like 
> "/48 sounds too big to me, let's make it 1/256th of that." 

In my case I have completely abandoned much of the debris of ipv4 and 
ipv6 - using self assigned /128s and a mesh routing protocol 
everywhere, giving up on multicast as we knew it, and all I need is 
one /64 to route my (almost entirely wireless) world. 

Somehow I doubt this will become a common option for others, but it 
sure is easier than navigating the slew of standards, configuring 
centralized services, and casting and configuring limited and highly 
dynamic ipv6 subnets around. 


> Regards, K. 
>
> -- 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
> Karl Auer (kauer () biplane com au) 
> http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer 
> http://twitter.com/kauer389 
>
> GPG fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4 
> Old fingerprint: EC67 61E2 C2F6 EB55 884B E129 072B 0AF0 72AA 9882 



-- 
Dave Täht 
worldwide bufferbloat report: 
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/results/bufferbloat 
And: 
What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? 
https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast