[170145] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: misunderstanding scale
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Naslund, Steve)
Mon Mar 24 15:01:42 2014
From: "Naslund, Steve" <SNaslund@medline.com>
To: Timothy Morizot <tmorizot@gmail.com>, Alexander Lopez
<alex.lopez@opsys.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:55:37 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAFy81rnYXLh=CWvbRg7NvaFEB4DeVbSVrLEy19+_NMDPaXY9Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I doubt that many residential customers will be readdressing their networks=
except for us geeks. Most of them are going to be using CPE that grabs an=
address via DHCP for the WAN interface and then does an IPv6 DHCP PD with =
the /64 it gets from the service provider. The customer sees nothing at al=
l. It is plug and play. In IPv6 the concept of manual addressing is stron=
gly discouraged so the issue of readdressing networks should be improved no=
t made more difficult. Private address space assignments might be simple t=
o you but grandma and my sister in law, not so much. They just plug in the=
ir gear and don't worry about addresses.
In the corporate world, there is nothing stopping you from keeping your ipv=
4 private addressing going for a long time. In fact, I think that is what =
most companies will do. If you want IPv6 internally, then have at it and p=
lease use DHCP.
Steven Naslund
>On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Alexander Lopez <alex.lopez@opsys.com<ma=
ilto:alex.lopez@opsys.com>> wrote:
>not to mention the cost in readdressing your entire network when you chang=
e an upstream provider.
>Nat was a fix to a problem of lack of addresses, however, the use of priv=
ate address space 10/8, 192.168/16 has allowed many to enjoy a simple netwo=
rk addressing scheme.
>Which is, of course, precisely the use case that ULA and NPTv6 (RFC 6296, =
not to be confused with a non-existent NAT66) addresses....
