<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On Mon 9/13/2010 1:17 PM, Mike Lieberman wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:0a4e01cb5380$b539e260$1fada720$@net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I have been reading all these discussions (mostly silently) for a long, long
time. I understand what a /48 is and a /56, /64 and /128. I understand the
notation.
Quite frankly what I don't get is why anyone thinks that consumers want
public numbers inside their home/LANs. Once my customers understood the
benefit of hiding behind a NAT, they embraced it quite emphatically.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, the stateful firewall aspect of their NAT box is quite useful.
I suspect all IPv6-capable home routers will still run a stateful
firewall with a default-closed policy on incoming traffic.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:0a4e01cb5380$b539e260$1fada720$@net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Put a private residence on public IPv6? Sorry but that makes no sense.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'd like to be able to have my phone communicate with my home boxes,
at line rate, regardless of whether I'm on my home wi-fi, or out on
someone else's network. If both devices have public IPv6 addresses,
I could initiate a connection, in either direction, using IPsec to
provide end-to-end security, and ensure that everything is always
instantly in sync between the devices, without having to go through
a server. <br>
<br>
Both Apple (with Bonjour) and Microsoft are doing a good job of
getting us back to seamless network device discovery and integration
using IPv6 link-local addresses on the local LAN. There's no reason
as we deploy v6 globally that we shouldn't be able to extend this
across the Internet. But if you implement v6 NAT, that's exactly
the kind of innovation you'd prevent.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:0a4e01cb5380$b539e260$1fada720$@net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Yes I agree that I don't know what people will need in 20 years. And YES it
is nice that we will have address space in 20 years. But allocating a /48 to
a home that today uses an IPv4 /30 with a private NAT seems beyond humorous.
It just sounds insane. Using private addressing that home already
potentially has access thousands of subnets and millions of addresses.
RFC 4193 provides even more addresses for use with firewall/NAT appliances.
Why does a home or business using RFC 4193 need a /48 or even a /56 or /64.
Just because we have the numbers does not mean we should distribute them.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Quite a few home networks run two SSIDs, one WPA2-encrypted for
private use, and one open for guests. Each of those should have its
own /64. That means I need at least a /56. <br>
<br>
-Scott<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:0a4e01cb5380$b539e260$1fada720$@net"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
_________________________
Mike Lieberman, President
Net Wright LLC
Tel: +1-307-857-4898
Fax: +1-307-857-4872
-----Original Message-----
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:arin-discuss-bounces@arin.net">arin-discuss-bounces@arin.net</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:arin-discuss-bounces@arin.net">mailto:arin-discuss-bounces@arin.net</a>]
On Behalf Of Dan White
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 1:28 PM
To: Tim Howe
Cc: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:arin-discuss@arin.net">arin-discuss@arin.net</a>
Subject: SPAM: Re: [arin-discuss] Trying to Understand IPV6
On 13/09/10 12:01 -0700, Tim Howe wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:32:33 +0100
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:michael.dillon@bt.com"><michael.dillon@bt.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If I assigned a customer say an IPV4 /21 in IPV6 this would translate
into a /56? If I'm not mistaken a /56 would translate into something
like 65,000 host addresses? That just seems like a lot of hosts to me,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Anyone in this position should simply assign a /48 to every customer site
no matter how big or small. A one bedroom apartment gets a /48. A
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">manufacturing
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">plant with 5 buildings including a 4-story office block, gets a /48.
No exceptions.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
This is slightly different than I have been led to think... It
seems wise, when you know the customer has no intention of having
multiple networks, to provide a /64. Not because you fear wasting
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Consider a long range scenario for that customer. A scenario in which they
may purchase networking equipment for multiple purposes in 5 or 10, or 20
years that performs layer two separation between different functions in
their network. E.g. Wifi, Bluetooth/USB, appliances, voice, video, visitor
access, alarm system, automobiles, utilities, etc.
I find it benefitial to consider that I probably don't know what a
customer's network will look like in 20 years, and a /48 per customer is
probably wisest until we've gained more operational experience with IPv6 in
our own network.
</pre>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
ARIN-Discuss
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Discussion Mailing List (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ARIN-discuss@arin.net">ARIN-discuss@arin.net</a>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-discuss</a>
Please contact <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>