[128015] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Addressing plan exercise for our IPv6 course
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Thu Jul 22 22:38:44 2010
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4C48E461.9090002@matthew.at>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:34:56 -0700
To: matthew@matthew.at
Cc: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Jul 22, 2010, at 5:37 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 00:33:45 BST, Matthew Walster said:
>>=20
>> =20
>>> 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.
>>> =20
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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?
>>=20
>> If it doesn't make sense for IPv4, why would you want to do it for =
IPv6?
>> =20
> "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.
>=20
> Matthew Kaufman
Well, wouldn't it be better if the provider simply issued enough space =
to
make NAT66 unnecessary?
Owen
