[128012] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matthew Kaufman)
Thu Jul 22 20:38:18 2010
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:37:53 -0700
From: Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
In-Reply-To: <6289.1279844658@localhost>
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Reply-To: matthew@matthew.at
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> 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?
>
"Home wifi router" vendors will do whatever it takes to make this work,
so of course in your scenario they simply implement NAT66 (whether or
not IETF folks think it is a good idea) however they see fit and nobody
calls.
Matthew Kaufman
