[111443] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert D. Scott)
Thu Feb 5 19:19:49 2009
From: "Robert D. Scott" <robert@ufl.edu>
To: "'Sven-Haegar Koch'" <haegar@sdinet.de>,
"'John Osmon'" <josmon@rigozsaurus.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0902060106410.377@aurora.sdinet.de>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:19:37 -0500
Cc: 'NANOG list' <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Wii should not even consider developing " a cool new protocol for the Wii"
that is not NAT compliant via V4 or V6. And if they do, we should elect a
NANOG regular to go "POSTAL" and handle the problem. The solution to many of
these networking conundrums should rest with the application people, and NOT
the network people.
While I am ranting, my other pet peeve are proprietary protocols that the
developer cannot take another couple of hours to provide a decoder for. If
you develop the protocol any of the developers at the Wireshark group would
help with the decode plugin.
Robert D. Scott Robert@ufl.edu
Senior Network Engineer 352-273-0113 Phone
CNS - Network Services 352-392-2061 CNS Receptionist
University of Florida 352-392-9440 FAX
Florida Lambda Rail 352-294-3571 FLR NOC
Gainesville, FL 32611 321-663-0421 Cell
-----Original Message-----
From: Sven-Haegar Koch [mailto:haegar@sdinet.de]
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 7:11 PM
To: John Osmon
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP
space (IPv6-MW)]
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...
