[111434] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ricky Beam)
Thu Feb 5 18:15:11 2009
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:15:02 -0500
To: "Joe Abley" <jabley@hopcount.ca>
From: "Ricky Beam" <jfbeam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3ABE26AC-57AB-4A85-8C14-27084F1DFCBD@hopcount.ca>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:18:15 -0500, Joe Abley <jabley@hopcount.ca> wrote:
> On 5-Feb-2009, at 13:44, Ricky Beam wrote:
>> This is the exact same bull**** as the /8 allocations in the early days
>> of IPv4.
...
> So in fact it's not *exactly* the same.
Just because the address space is mind-alteringly larger does not mean the
same flawed thought process isn't being used. In the mid-80's, /8's were
handed out like candy because there were "lots of address space" and
"we'll never use it all." Well, that didn't last very long. I've
listened to IPv6 advocates singing that same song for a decade. They are
doomed to repeat the same mistake. (sure, it'll take longer than with
IPv4.)
> You might like to review the DHCPv6 specification and try some of its
> implementations.
IPv6 was designed to "not need DHCP." DHCPv6 has come about since people
need more than just an address from "autoconfiguration".
I can recall many posts over the years from the IPng WG telling people
they didn't need DHCP.
--Ricky
