[167157] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Dec 2 20:23:33 2013
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <op.w7hq12kktfhldh@rbeam.xactional.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:18:08 -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 16:45 , Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 18:54:24 -0500, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> =
wrote:
>> I said Site-Scoped multicast (ffx5::)
>=20
> And just how does one telnet/ssh/smb/http/whatever to another machine =
via MULTICAST? You don't. Locating the machine isn't the issue; having =
an address that can be trivially determined as "local" is. ULA would =
work, but you'd have to know to use that address instead of any global =
address.
>=20
You don't, but it's easy enough for Windows to do discovery and/or =
negotiation for firewall holes with multicast and avoid making =
assumptions about where the site boundary is. You made the claim that =
additional assumptions were required. I countered that argument. Mark =
countered with another alternative solution which would require updating =
the software. My solution has the advantage that only windows firewalls =
need to be updated and that could be handled by a windows auto-update =
(which is on by default in current versions of windows unless you have =
already performed manual intervention, in which case I don't see manual =
intervention on the firewall as a huge additional hurdle).
>> 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.
>=20
> Right. So every "home user" (read: grandmother) should request their =
own PI space, that they'll then have to tunnel to a far more expensive =
COLO...
I didn't say that it was the right solution for everyone. I said that it =
was an effective solution for some.
>=20
> PI space is useless to residential customers because no residential =
ISP will ever bother with the headache. (I never liked dealing with =
business customers here, and they were paying a lot more for the =
privilege, and presumably had a clue.)
To each their own. FWIW, you can run a BGP tunnel with HE at no cost, so =
IPv6 PI for free is a viable option. Again, not saying it's the solution =
for everyone, just saying that it can be done.
>=20
>> 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.
>=20
> ISPs do it right now for IPv4; and it makes them real money. They're =
not going to want to give that up. You don't, and that's fine. But I =
can assure you the suits what to keep cashing those checks.
No, it doesn't. It keeps users from using more space more than it brings =
in revenue. Mostly it's a "headache charge". They can't get away with =
flat out saying no, so they price it into the "only if you're really =
serious about wanting it" category and that limits the number of =
customers asking for it. In IPv4, where address scarcity is an issue, =
this makes sense. In IPv6, they should be laughed out of existence if =
they engage in such silliness.
You are assuming that I don't talk to the people that deal with this =
stuff at the major providers. You are mistaken in that assumption.
Owen
