[111348] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Howard C. Berkowitz)
Wed Feb 4 19:38:40 2009
In-Reply-To: <D994192E-713D-4E63-91E8-6ABEA684DB6F@ianai.net>
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 19:38:34 -0500 (EST)
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@netcases.net>
To: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>>
>
>>> Second, where did you get 4 users per /64? Are you planning to hand
>>> each cable modem a /64?
>>
>>
>> That was the generally accepted subnet practice last time I had a
>> discussion about it on the ipv6-ops list. I'm not an ISP, but I have a
>> /48 and each subnet is a /64. Some devices will refuse to work if you
>> subnet smaller than a /64. (Yes, poorly designed, etc.)
>
> I Am Not An ISP either. :)
>
> I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet, just
> an IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL & Cable
> modem, then we may very well be recreating the same problem.
>
> And before anyone says "there are 281474976710656 /48s!", just
> remember your history. I was not there when v4 was spec'ed out, but I
> bet when someone said "four-point-two BILLION addresses", someone else
> said "no $@#%'ing way we will EVER use THAT many...."
>
Ah, but RFC 760, before 791, did assume "more than 253 networks? Nahhh..."
