[143437] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 end user addressing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexander Harrowell)
Wed Aug 10 06:57:33 2011
From: Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:55:15 +0100
In-Reply-To: <D0B06FF4-A9F8-419C-8B49-2FA41343251B@delong.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--nextPart4565586.EqsYcIbgrs
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Monday 08 Aug 2011 22:00:52 Owen DeLong wrote:
>=20
> On Aug 8, 2011, at 7:12 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
>=20
> >=20
> >=20
> > On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> >=20
> >> On Mon, 08 Aug 2011 10:15:17 +0200, Mohacsi Janos said:
> >>=20
> >>> - Home users - they usually don't know what is subnet. Setting up
> >>> different subnets in their SOHO router can be difficult. Usually=20
the
> >>> simple 1 subnet for every device is enough for them. Separating=20
some
> >>> devices into a separate subnets is usually enough for the most
> >>> sophisticated home users. If not then he can opt for business=20
service....
> >>=20
> >> You don't want to make the assumption that just because Joe Sixpack=20
doesn't
> >> know what a subnet is, that Joe Sixpack's CPE doesn't know either.
> >>=20
> >> And remember that if it's 3 hops from one end of Joe Sixpack's=20
internal net to
> >> the other, you're gonna burn a few bits to support heirarchical=20
routing so you
> >> don't need a routing protocol. So if Joe's exterior-facing CPU gets=20
handed a
> >> /56 by the provider, and it hands each device it sees a /60 in case=20
it's a
> >> device that routes too, it can only support 14 devices. And if one=20
of the
> >=20
> > more exactly 16 routing devices. You don't have to count the all 0=20
and all 1 as reserved.... maybe each deeice can see /57 or /58 or=20
/59.... depending of capabilities your devices....
> >=20
> > I think daisy chaining of CPE routers is bad idea - as probably done=20
in several IPv4 home networks. Why would you build several hierarchy=20
into you network if it is unnecessary?
> >=20
> >=20
> I can see things like wanting to have an entertainment systems network=20
that is fronted
> by a router with additional networks for each entertainment system=20
fronted by their
> own router, segmentation of various appliance networks with possibly=20
an appliance
> front-end router, etc.
>=20
> There are lots of possibilities we haven't thought of here yet.=20
Limiting end-users
> to /56 or worse will only stifle the innovation that will help us=20
identify the possibilities.
> For this, if no other reason, (and I cite the limitations under which=20
we have begun
> to frame our assumptions about how the internet works as a result of=20
NAT as an
> example), I think we should avoid preserving this cultural=20
conditioning in IPv6.
>=20
>=20
> Owen
>=20
>=20
Thinking about the CPE thread, isn't this a case for bridging as a=20
feature in end-user devices? If Joe's media-centre box etc would bridge=20
its downstream ports to the upstream port, the devices on them could=20
just get an address, whether by DHCPv6 from the CPE router's delegation=20
or by SLAAC, and then register in local DNS or more likely do multicast-
DNS so they could find each other.=20
And then it really doesn't matter; everything gets its address, nothing=20
is NATted, every address is mapped to a meaningful hostname.
Perhaps you'd need more aggregation and routing in the glorious one-IP-
per-nanite-and-Facebook-fridges future, but that's for another day once=20
we've got fusion and a rational system of government out of the way:-)=20
Joe's network as described isn't big enough or clever enough to need=20
multiple routers. It's just a small LAN and it's only Joe's weirdness in=20
using a $500 Roku as a $5 hank of cat5e and a $20 4-port switch that=20
prevents it from being so.
Not all problems should be solved by routing - but a list full of=20
"router people" is inherently likely to try to solve all its problems=20
with more routers and routing.
=2D-=20
The only thing worse than e-mail disclaimers...is people who send e-mail=20
to lists complaining about them
--nextPart4565586.EqsYcIbgrs
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEABECAAYFAk5CY6cACgkQ0c69vkueJcRYrwCdFKQ40lsSHqhHuKXxUon1ZTeC
5l4An38QY2FT8WjuEIoiiisDfNS1s0eo
=YssU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart4565586.EqsYcIbgrs--
