Re: IP network address assignments/allocations information?

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand]

At 21:17 07.12.99 -0500, Daniel Senie wrote:

>Sounds to me like at best I'd trade a NAT box with firewalling for a
>serious firewall.

Right. Insecure devices require protection, always.

>  I have ZERO interest in allowing the kinds of things
>you describe to occur from outside. While you may not mind someone
>hacking into the microphone on your PC and using it as a bug I am a
>little less trusting.
>
> >
> > OTOH, if you combine NAT with 6to4 for home networks, the
> > picture starts to look a bit better.  Think of 6to4 as the
> > generic ALG that rids you of the need to have separate ALGs
> > for most of the applications that NAT happens to break.
>
>So, will any of our ISP readers go on the record as saying they'll
>provide users of dialup and DSL/Cable lines to have a large block of
>addresses each, instead of just a single host address?

If you do the "native" IPv6 address assignment, it's impossible to route on 
anything smaller than a /64.
You then have 2^63 addresses for manual configuration within the subnet, in 
addition to the ability to connect anything with a MAC address without an 
address clash.

So the answer is "yes".
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[EMAIL PROTECTED]