[126062] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Stewart)
Thu Apr 29 11:45:43 2010
In-Reply-To: <4BD5A12E.50907@sprunk.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:45:06 -0700
From: Bill Stewart <nonobvious@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
> The vast majority of residential customers have a single subnet, so they
> can get by just fine using IPv6 link-local addresses. =A0The vanishingly
> small percentage that have multiple subnets are presumably savvy enough
> to set up ULA-R addresses. =A0There is no need for ULA-C in this scenario=
.
Actually it's pretty common for residential customers to have multiple subn=
ets,
one wired and one wireless, even if they're both NAT'd to 192.168.x.x.
They may may or not be doing anything with the wired subnet,
and their wireless router may also be providing a wired subnet bridged
with the wireless,
and it's all happening in little consumer-appliance boxes that work by magi=
c,
but it's out there.
--=20
----
Thanks; Bill
Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so =
far.
And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
