[167143] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Dec 2 17:57:39 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.w7hk1ee8tfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:54:50 -0800
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG List <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 2, 2013, at 14:35 , Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:42:02 -0500, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> =
wrote:
>> Quite a few with at least three out there these days. Many home =
gateways now come with separate networks for Wired, WiFi, and Guest =
WiFi.
>=20
> Interesting... I've not looked at the current "high end" (i.e. things =
that cost more than $17 at Tiger Direct.)
>=20
Maybe you should expand your consideration to include $30-$50 at Best =
Buy.
>> However, as I have repeatedly said... IPv6 is not about just what we =
need today. What we need today is limited to what we could do with the =
scarcity inherent in IPv4 addressing. Restricting IPv6 based on those =
limitations is absurd.
>=20
> DHCPv6-PD isn't a "restriction", it's simply what gets handed out =
today. A "simple" reconfiguration on the DHCP server and it's handing =
out /56's instead. (or *allowing* /56's if requested -- it's better to =
let the customer ask for what they need/want; assuming they just default =
to asking for the largest block they're allowed and using only 3 =
networks.)
>=20
No, DHCPv6-PD isn't a restriction. Only handing out a /60 _IS_ a =
restriction.
As to a "simple" reconfiguration, not really. That depends very much on =
how the infrastructure that DHCP server supports is architected.
>> IPv6 should be about what we want to be able to do in 5, 10, 20, and =
50 years. It shouldn't be about what we need today.
>=20
> We don't know what we'll need in the future. We only know what we need =
right now. Using the current dynamic mechanisms we can provide for now =
and "later", as "later" becomes apparent.
Circular and short-sighted argument.
There's already clear evidence that having a wider bit field will enable =
greater flexibility and better application development, so we should be =
deploying that wider bitfield.
You're arguing the network equivalant of "we shouldn't deploy charging =
stations until there are tons of electric cars on the road." I'm arguing =
that we'll never see tons of electric cars on the road until there is a =
widespread infrastructure of charging stations. So far, in the electric =
car world, it seems that charging stations are starting to pop up all =
over the place and as they become more widespread, indeed, more electric =
cars are hitting the road.
>=20
>> Yes, we've suffered with a severely degraded internet for decades. Is =
that really a reason not to make things better going forward? I don't =
think so.
>=20
> More complex is not always "better". This is doubly true here as very =
few people ("the public") have any measurable clue when it comes to =
networks. The Internet is just something that works. When you start =
mixing in multiple networks, that's going to create problems for them. =
Recall my Windows warning... the default firewall setup blocks inbound =
access from outside the local subnet. So with the above 3-way router, a =
PC on the wired network and a laptop on WiFi would not be able to talk =
to each other without MANUAL adjustment -- or Microsoft will have to =
start making (even more) dangerous assumptions about one's network =
[assume every "LAN" is /60? /56?, on top of the already Bad Idea(tm) =
that "ALL LANS ARE SLASH SIXTY-FOUR, SO SAYETH THE RFC!"]
I agree... The unnecessary complexity inherent in NAT and even moreso =
with CGN is horrible.
Multiple networks will be plug and play. Heck, they already are in some =
circumstances... Look at the number of people that have no trouble =
converting their cell phones and tablets from simple nodes to internet =
routers.=20
I don't know why you think that the PC and Laptop can't talk to each =
other. It actually seems to work just fine. They both default to the =
upstream router and the router has more specifics to each of the two LAN =
segments.
Micr0$0ft doesn't have to make any assumptions at all. In the IPv6 =
world, they can use site-scoped multicast (ffx5::).
All that is required in that case is for the home gateway to know that =
it is the home gateway and not a lower-level router within the site. =
(More accurately, it needs to be able to distinguish between the =
provider link and it's intra-site links. I believe that is generally =
something that the gateway should be able to do automatically...
(The DSL or Cable interface is obviously not intra-site, for example).
>=20
>> I hate to break it to you, but, no, nobody is really paying for that =
space.
>=20
> Go talk to your bean counters. There's a line-item charge for your =
address space; they'll want it as small as possible. (they'll also want =
to make as much money off that space as possible. Even if *you* aren't =
charging for IPv{4,6} space, almost everyone else does, and wants to =
continue. Because it's a major source of revenue.)
I have talked to my bean counters. We give out /48s to anyone who wants =
them and we don't charge for IPv6 address space.
Frankly, if you're paying for IPv6 space, you're not too bright. You can =
go get a direct assignment from an RIR so easily for $100/year that it =
just doesn't make sense to pay more than that.
Owen
