[ppml] alternative realities

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net]On Behalf Of
>Michel Py
>Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 9:55 PM
>To: ppml at arin.net
>Subject: Re: [ppml] alternative realities
>
>
>Talking about alternative realities, there's one already here that I did
>not suspect it was: double-NAT. I'm not talking about China, I'm talking
>about mainland USA.
>
>Here's the story: I volunteered to provide WiFi Internet access to a
>site-in-the-middle-of-nowhere for 3 days. For free, of course. I decided
>that what I could do for the money would be to share my 3G phone. So I
>grab another laptop (not mine, heaven forbid), connect the phone to one
>of the USB ports and a $35 Belkin WiFi "router" (bought at the closest
>Staples) to the Ethernet port, and share the connection by checking the
>appropriate box in M$ windblows XP's config. My laptop becomes a DHCP
>server and a NAT box.
>
>The only other configuration required is to disable DHCP on the Belkin
>and assign a static IP (192.168.0.2) to it, also configure a password,
>there will be teens using it.
>
>Half-surprise #1: the IP address I get from the 3G phone is a 10.net.
>Darn, the el-cheapo unlimited plan does not entitle one to a real IP
>address.
>
>Half-surprise #2: it works just fine. It's built into XP, it takes 30
>seconds to configure. It's powered by a 12-volt inverter off the car's
>battery. It's double-NAT: my laptop (the DHCP server) hands out IP
>addresses out of 192.168.0.0/24.

I don't think this is double-nat (unless your considering the Belkin
which should have been replaced with an access point - what kind of
network person are you, you knew that Internet Sharing is nat already
and you bought a wifi router? - in any cast the Belkin is not germane
to the discussion).  On the surface it appears to be IPv4<->IPv6 NAT and
the question is how exactly did it work.  I didn't know XP's Internet
Sharing had that built in to it, and I still strongly suspect it doesen't.

I would suspect, that there's more here going on under the
covers that you realize.  You said you plugged the phone into a USB
port on the XP system.  I'll bet that you ran some form of PPPoE
that tunnelled your IPv4 on the XP system through the IPv6 network
the phone used, to some set of gateway servers that the phone
provider has setup.  This probably was hidden from you by the phone
connectivity software.

>
>No, people using it can't host their web site on it, which I don't want
>them to in the first place. However, people drive in, power up their
>laptop, see only one ESSID (remember, we're in the middle of nowhere),
>and connect to it just fine. They can check their email, look at their
>stock portfolio, and email the digital picture of their progeniture to
>grandma.
>
>Someone explains me again why I should spend money to upgrade to IPv6?
>I.S.D.N: I Still Don't Need.
>

As an end user, you shouldn't.  There will be plenty of ISPs out there
willing to continue to have you connect through them to the Internet using
IPv4.  Some of them might not even charge you any extra for doing it.
And most of them aren't going to be telling the end user WHAT the end user
is using.

End users interact with the Internet via domain names, Michel.  They
do not as a rule care what the TCP application does after getting the
domain name.  Most likely the ISP's that will only hand out IPv6 IP
addresses
will be stating "Windows Vista or later required" on their signup forms
sometime
about 5 years after the end of product support from Microsoft for Windows
XP.  That is about the earliest they will feel comfortable telling people
without IPv6 support to get lost.  And of course, their setup software will
configure their customers PC's behind the customers back - into IPv6.

Migrating end users to IPv6 is almost wholly dependent on adoption rates
of the Windows operating system versions - this is the 2000 pound pink
elephant
in the room that nobody wants to talk about.  There's no real point in
discussing
end user migration when 40% of the user base hasn't upgraded past Windows
2000
(which does not have production IPv6 support)

When we see Windows Vista reaching 50% penetration and the "post Vista"
windows
OS at 20% penetration, and the "pre Vista" os's at 30% penetration of all
Windows desktops, that will then be the time to start discussing migration
of
SOHO end users independently connected to ISPs, to IPv6.

Ted