[111440] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sven-Haegar Koch)
Thu Feb 5 19:11:38 2009
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 01:11:13 +0100 (CET)
From: Sven-Haegar Koch <haegar@sdinet.de>
To: John Osmon <josmon@rigozsaurus.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090205220614.GA18219@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, John Osmon wrote:
> 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.
What's the difference to firewalling without NAT? (Noone should connect
their (home) network without at least inbound filtering) There I have to
wait for the firewall box to support connection tracking for the new
(broken) protocol.
If the end-users really get public addresses for their WII and game-PCs,
do you really think they won't just open the box totally in their
firewall/router and catch/create even more problems?
c'ya
sven
--
The lights are fading out, once more...
