[167149] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Dec 2 18:57:51 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.w7hn92rotfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:54:24 -0800
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 2, 2013, at 15:45 , Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 17:54:50 -0500, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> =
wrote:
>> 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.
>=20
> You are confusing ROUTING with the WINDOWS FIREWALL (on by default)
>=20
> Wired pinging Wireless will be dropped by the OS as foreign, =
unsolicited traffic. (I see it often enough: A cannot talk to B because =
they're in different networks.)
Meh... The firewall will get updated and will have to become more =
intelligent. Given that Micr0$0ft also turns on automatic updates by =
default, I'm not too worried about the people who haven't configured =
their windows box. Besides, Windows is actually losing market share =
these days anyway.
>=20
>> Micr0$0ft doesn't have to make any assumptions at all. In the IPv6 =
world, they can use site-scoped multicast (ffx5::).
>=20
> People don't even know what link-local addresses are (and they don't =
cross links.) Site-local (ULA) requires administrative configuration; =
no machine, by default, will have a ULA address until manually =
configured (i.e. they see an RA.)
I didn't say ULA or Site-Local. I said Site-Scoped multicast (ffx5::) =
specifically. (Site Local is deprecated, ULA is fd00::/8).
Further, according to Homenet work going on in the IETF, like it or not, =
most homenet gateways will be choosing and advertising a ULA prefix for =
the home in addition to the GUA prefix assigned by the service provider.
However, coming back to what I was actually talking about, =
mDNS/SAP/Network Browser/Network Neighborhood/whatever you want to call =
the discovery mechanism du jour can find the hosts on the other networks =
within the site using site-scoped multicast groups (which start with =
ffx5::/16) and could even do some of their communication (e.g. =
negotiating for changes in the default firewall posture) via that =
mechanism.
>> 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.
>=20
> If you can justify it. A home user... good luck with that (a: getting =
the space, and then b: getting Uverse, etc. to use it.) For a business, =
I always say get your own space, unless you like re-numbering every time =
you change providers. (we've done it 5 times in 10 years. 'tho none of =
them have ever supported IPv6; shame on them.) [while "renumbering" the =
network may be simple, changing the prefix(es) that have been recorded =
in various systems is still a pain.]
I'm a home user. I run my own /48 ARIN assignment here. I use tunnels to =
routers in colo and only use Comcast et. al to provide transit for the =
tunnels themselves.
My point is that home users by and large don't pay for any address space =
and there's not much to be gained from trying to charge them for it.
Beyond home users, there's not much point in paying any significant =
amount of money for it.
There's no meaningful cost in providing home users with /48s... So much =
so, in fact, that the cost of taking even a single phone call =
complaining about an undersized IPv6 assignment probably more than pays =
for assigning /48s to 1,000 customers.
Owen
