On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:25:44 -0500, Iljitsch van Beijnum
<iljit...@muada.com> wrote:
On 5 feb 2009, at 1:16, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
I guess I was thinking about v4 modems which do not get a subnet, just
an IP address. If we really are handing out a /64 to each DSL & Cable
modem, then we may very well be recreating the same problem.
IPv4 thinking.
A single /64 isn't enough for a home user, because their gateway is a
router and needs a different prefix at both sides. Users may also want
to subnet their own network. So they need at least something like a /60.
This is not a "maybe", Mr. Gilmore. It's repeating the same mistakes of
IPv4.
Mr. van B, your comments would be laughable if they weren't so absurdly
horrific. I've lived quite productively behind a single IPv4 address for
nearly 15 years. I've run 1000 user networks that only used one IPv4
address for all of them. I have 2 private /24's using a single public
IPv4 address right now -- as they have been for 6+ years. Yet, in the new
order, you're telling me I need 18 billion, billion addresses to cover 2
laptops, a Wii, 3 tivos, a router, and an access point? Did we suddenly
jump 20 years into the past? This is the exact same bull**** as the /8
allocations in the early days of IPv4. The idea of the "connected home"
is still nowhere near *that* connected; no matter how many toys you have
in your bathroom, it doesn't need a /96 of it's own. (which is an entire
IPv4 of it's own.)
Why do people avoid and resist IPv6... because it was designed with blind
ignorance of the history of IPv4's mistakes (and how we *all* run our IPv4
networks.) Dooming us to repeating ALL those mistakes again. Exhibit A:
With IPv6 Address Autoconfiguration (tm) (patent pending), you don't need
DHCP. *face plant* The IPv4 mistake you've NOT learned from here is
"rarp". DCHP does far more than tell a host was address it should use.
(yes, I've called for the IPng WG member's execution, reanimation, and
re-execution, several times.)
--Ricky
