[126068] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: [Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Apr 29 12:27:15 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <i2x18a5e7cb1004290845r7e350ef3t993a02ec1abe18f8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:23:37 -0700
To: Bill Stewart <nonobvious@gmail.com>
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Apr 29, 2010, at 8:45 AM, Bill Stewart wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:20 AM, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> =
wrote:
>=20
>> The vast majority of residential customers have a single subnet, so =
they
>> can get by just fine using IPv6 link-local addresses. The =
vanishingly
>> small percentage that have multiple subnets are presumably savvy =
enough
>> to set up ULA-R addresses. There is no need for ULA-C in this =
scenario.
>=20
> Actually it's pretty common for residential customers to have multiple =
subnets,
> 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,
If it's bridged, they are not separate subnets. This is the most common =
configuration.
For one thing, if they are both NAT'd, things on wireless the consumer =
expects to
be able to talk to things on wired tend not to work. (This is only =
partially due to
NAT, but, largely due to lazy code that assumes everything is on one =
subnet
which is usually a safe assumption. The reason this became a usually =
safe
assumption is another example of damage done by NAT).
> and it's all happening in little consumer-appliance boxes that work by =
magic,
> but it's out there.
>=20
Not quite the way you seem to think it is.
Owen
