[ppml] IPv6>>32

[Steve Atkins]

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:54:49AM -0700, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Leo and all,
> 
>   No offense, but the average Joe knows much more than your
> giving him credit for...  And as such an assumption is troubling
> with regards to participation, many average Joe's also know that
> this attitude is so prevalent that many of them feel as though
> they are being relegated to being ignorant improperly...

Joe User may know, but Joe User doesn't really care that much. With
a few exceptions Joe User simply picks from the options available.

I also don't think that it's a perceived scarcity of addresses - I
think Joe User sees that it's because the consumer ISPs don't want
servers running on consumer accounts because they can charge more for
accounts that do allow servers. Dynamically assigning addresses to
always-on connections (and to a lesser extent creative port blocking)
are primarily for product differentiation, and I think that's pretty
well understood by Joe User. I've not even heard an ISP claim that
dynamic assignments are due to scarcity of addresses since the
days of pay-per-minute dialup.

I suspect that if there is any choice of IPv6 service available at all
the one Joe User demands will be driven more by what Linksys and
Netgear support well, rather than by any of Joes beliefs about
how it should be, and that may make Leo's optimistic thoughts about
autoconfiguration more realistic. Then again, Linksys and friends
are sneaky and may well be able to provide a very simple, happy
end-user experience without having 2^64 bits to play with. And
that's all Joe User really cares about.

> Leo says
> > I'm still optimistic.  I think we'll get a /64 to the home.  It's
> > mainly based around an assumption that people will want autoconfiguration
> > to work, so a /64 will be required.  I think the hopes of a /48 on
> > "home" service are slim to none though, as the Verizon's of the
> > world are going to first wonder why you need more than a /64, but
> > more importantly if they do give it to you it will be for a cost
> > as an additional revenue stream.  Those who need multiple subnets
> > will find NAT, or subdividing the /64 much cheaper options.

Cheers,
  Steve
-- 
-- Steve Atkins aka "Joe User"