[128011] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Thu Jul 22 20:25:03 2010
To: Matthew Walster <matthew@walster.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:33:45 BST."
<AANLkTilv90fjHaCpIgeYBlcokc_61TPoU1_PAZwudoKp@mail.gmail.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:24:18 -0400
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1279844658_3885P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:33:45 BST, Matthew Walster said:
> I never saw the point of assigning a /48 to a DSL customer. Surely the
> better idea would be to assign your bog standard residential DSL
> customer a /64 and assign them a /56 or /48 if they request it, routed
> to an IP of their choosing.
If they're using autoconfigure for IPv6 addresses, what happens if they want to
share that connection? Giving them a /64 off the bat means that a very sizable
fraction of your users are going to call.
Phrased differently - how screwed would you be if you engineered your IPv4
network so the default was "one device only", and the customer had to call you
and ask for a network config change because they wanted to hook up a $50 home
wifi router?
If it doesn't make sense for IPv4, why would you want to do it for IPv6?
--==_Exmh_1279844658_3885P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFMSOEycC3lWbTT17ARAkWZAJ9FskjcCkzWSx6rLHTpKCkMEKDJkwCgkLtt
R84quY9pyhm45gOqbqx/WcQ=
=Smo3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1279844658_3885P--
