[137407] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Sat Feb 12 09:01:24 2011
To: Adam Atkinson <ghira@mistral.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 12 Feb 2011 09:02:32 GMT."
<4D564CA8.9010206@mistral.co.uk>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 08:59:35 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1297519175_6099P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 09:02:32 GMT, Adam Atkinson said:
> When I switched to ADSL I'm pretty sure I was offered the choice of a
> single public IP address on the outside of my router, or a /29 public
> range for my home network (and presumably also a public address for the
> external interface of my router). I chose the former and don't regret
> having done so. I can do a mixture of static and dynamic NAT to allow
> things from the outside into particular internal hosts if I want do.
>
> This was in 2005, and I can very well believe this choice was not
> available some time later.
It's more a business question. If you're an ADSL provider, you probably want
to save "multiple public IP" as a feature so you can upsell customers to
"business class". There's little business case for doing it by default for Joe
Sixpack (especially in a world where public IP's are getting scarce).
Fortunately, in IPv6 the bit boundaries have moved, so there's no scarcity
issue and "give everybody a /48 (or at least a /56)" is a no-brainer.
--==_Exmh_1297519175_6099P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFNVpJHcC3lWbTT17ARAgupAKCkrhIoew5OIFow/HV18oRKqZCTiQCfbsih
FaLcmMsHRfihnWp+ZXaWsGs=
=gxt0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1297519175_6099P--
