[ppml] IPv6>>32

[Jeff Williams]

Steve and all,

  Respectively I disagree.  However I can't accurately know if
a majority of "users" know or don't know.  Neither can you...

Steve Atkins wrote:

> 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"

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827