[111353] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Anthony Roberts)
Wed Feb 4 20:05:23 2009
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:05:18 -0700
From: Anthony Roberts <nanog@arbitraryconstant.com>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <498A3514.1050608@internode.com.au>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:08:44 +1030, Matthew Moyle-Croft
<mmc@internode.com.au> wrote:
>
> Let's face it - the current v6 assignment rules are to solve a 1990s set
> of problems. A /64 isn't needed now that we have DHCP(v6).
It's needed to prevent people from NATing in v6, as they'll still want
their stuff behind a firewall, and some of them will want subnets.
> Setting the idea in people's heads that a /64 IS going to be their own
> statically is insane and will blow out provider's own routing tables
> more than is rational.
No larger than their ARP tables are now.
