[ppml] Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:36:51AM -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> There is not, to my knowledge, a SINGLE CPE, ie: DSL modem, cable modem,
> Linksys/Netgear/Dlink/whatever ethernet-to-ethernet router that speaks
> IPv6.  Other than the test firmware that was written for a Linksys I

Apple Airport Extreme.  IPv6 routing, 6to4 tunneling and manual
tunnels out of the box.

> A very large number of residential users run multiple computers, both
> laptops on wireless or small hubs.  Their ISP can, of course, easily
> assign them a subnet of IPv6.  But, they will need a router at their
> site to route the IPv6 subnet.

Perhaps if your cable modem, often provided by the ISP, dropped off
a /64 there would be a lot of users who had no need for a NAT/Router.
WiFi boxes may not be manageable over IPv6, but can broadcast an
IPv6 network at layer 2 in this configuration.  The primary reason
people have "routers" today is they get a single IP, so they need
a NAT gatway to connect multiple computers.  Providing a /64 makes
that unnecessary, which largely means support in those boxes is a
non-issue.

Imagine that, removing a box from the network, reducing cost,
complexity, and configuration.

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20080214/8fff406d/attachment.sig>