[181992] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike Hammett)
Thu Jul 9 09:10:22 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 08:04:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Hammett <nanog@ics-il.net>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAA93jw72E32gaW8fQkk2XaSy_0U-+CZD3hfYC3R0tZcaKPC98Q@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Don't confuse someone's poor design with design goals.=20
-----=20
Mike Hammett=20
Intelligent Computing Solutions=20
http://www.ics-il.com=20
Midwest Internet Exchange=20
http://www.midwest-ix.com=20
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Taht" <dave.taht@gmail.com>=20
To: "Karl Auer" <kauer@biplane.com.au>=20
Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org>=20
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 10:48:26 PM=20
Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion=20
On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote:=20
> On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 21:03 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote:=20
>> I wasn't aware that residential users had (intentionally) multiple=20
>> layers of routing within the home.=20
No, what they often have is multiple layers of nat. I was at a hotel=20
once that had plugged in 12 APs, serially, wan, to lan, to wan, to=20
lan, to wan ports... because the Internet is a series of tubes, right?=20
> You, we, all of us have to stop using the present to limit the future.=20
> What IS should not be used to define what SHOULD BE.=20
>=20
> What people NOW HAVE in their homes should not be used to dictate to=20
> them what they CAN HAVE in their homes, which is what you do when you=20
> provide them only with non-globally-routable address space (IPv4 NAT),=20
> or too few subnets (IPv6 /56) to name just two examples.=20
>=20
> Multiple layers of routing might not be what is now in the home, but it=
=20
> doesn't take that much imagination to envision a future where there are=
=20
> hundreds, or even thousands of separate networks in the average home,=20
> some permanent, some ephemeral, and quite possibly all requiring=20
> end-to-end connectivity into the wider Internet. Taking into account=20
> just a few current technologies (virtual machines, car networks,=20
> personal networks, guest networks, entertainment systems) and=20
> fast-forwarding just a few years it's easy to imagine tens of subnets=20
> being needed - so it's not much of a leap to hundreds. And if we can=20
> already dimly see a future where hundreds might be needed, history tells=
=20
> us that there will probably be applications that need thousands.=20
>=20
> Unless of course we decide now that we don't WANT that. Then we should=20
> make it hard for it to happen by applying entirely arbitrary brakes like=
=20
> "/48 sounds too big to me, let's make it 1/256th of that."=20
In my case I have completely abandoned much of the debris of ipv4 and=20
ipv6 - using self assigned /128s and a mesh routing protocol=20
everywhere, giving up on multicast as we knew it, and all I need is=20
one /64 to route my (almost entirely wireless) world.=20
Somehow I doubt this will become a common option for others, but it=20
sure is easier than navigating the slew of standards, configuring=20
centralized services, and casting and configuring limited and highly=20
dynamic ipv6 subnets around.=20
> Regards, K.=20
>=20
> --=20
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~=
=20
> Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au)=20
> http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer=20
> http://twitter.com/kauer389=20
>=20
> GPG fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4=20
> Old fingerprint: EC67 61E2 C2F6 EB55 884B E129 072B 0AF0 72AA 9882=20
>=20
>=20
--=20
Dave T=C3=A4ht=20
worldwide bufferbloat report:=20
http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/results/bufferbloat=20
And:=20
What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone?=20
https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast=20
