[111427] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Osmon)
Thu Feb 5 17:06:22 2009
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:06:14 -0700
From: John Osmon <josmon@rigozsaurus.com>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <op.uoweo8dxtfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:44:58PM -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
> [...] I've lived quite productively behind a single IPv4 address for
> nearly 15 years. I've run 1000 user networks that only used one IPv4
> address for all of them. I have 2 private /24's using a single public
> IPv4 address right now -- as they have been for 6+ years. Yet, in the new
> order, you're telling me I need 18 billion, billion addresses to cover 2
> laptops, a Wii, 3 tivos, a router, and an access point?
Thank you. Your ability to live with proxied/NATed Internet access has
helped stave off the problems we're seeing now.
The flip side shows up when Nintendo creates a cool new protocol for the Wii
that requires Internet access. You Wii won't be able to participate
until you teach your proxy/NAT box about the new protocol.
I might not need a /96 for my razor, but I *do* want to have address
space that allows more than one thing in my house to participate fully
in use of the Internet.
I have a group of gear at my house that can live in a NATted
environment. Those things get RFC-1918 space, and live happily. I also
have a /28 for laptops, VOIP gear, etc. -- I *like* those things
to have Internet access rather than proxy-access.
I have v6 space as well. I'm awaiting the day that I can get it from
any common provider.
