On Dec 2, 2013, at 16:45 , Ricky Beam <jfb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 18:54:24 -0500, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> I said Site-Scoped multicast (ffx5::) > > And just how does one telnet/ssh/smb/http/whatever to another machine via > MULTICAST? You don't. Locating the machine isn't the issue; having an address > that can be trivially determined as "local" is. ULA would work, but you'd > have to know to use that address instead of any global address. >
You don't, but it's easy enough for Windows to do discovery and/or negotiation for firewall holes with multicast and avoid making assumptions about where the site boundary is. You made the claim that additional assumptions were required. I countered that argument. Mark countered with another alternative solution which would require updating the software. My solution has the advantage that only windows firewalls need to be updated and that could be handled by a windows auto-update (which is on by default in current versions of windows unless you have already performed manual intervention, in which case I don't see manual intervention on the firewall as a huge additional hurdle). >> I'm a home user. I run my own /48 ARIN assignment here. I use tunnels to >> routers in colo and only use Comcast et. al to provide transit for the >> tunnels themselves. > > Right. So every "home user" (read: grandmother) should request their own PI > space, that they'll then have to tunnel to a far more expensive COLO... I didn't say that it was the right solution for everyone. I said that it was an effective solution for some. > > PI space is useless to residential customers because no residential ISP will > ever bother with the headache. (I never liked dealing with business customers > here, and they were paying a lot more for the privilege, and presumably had a > clue.) To each their own. FWIW, you can run a BGP tunnel with HE at no cost, so IPv6 PI for free is a viable option. Again, not saying it's the solution for everyone, just saying that it can be done. > >> My point is that home users by and large don't pay for any address space and >> there's not much to be gained from trying to charge them for it. > > ISPs do it right now for IPv4; and it makes them real money. They're not > going to want to give that up. You don't, and that's fine. But I can assure > you the suits what to keep cashing those checks. No, it doesn't. It keeps users from using more space more than it brings in revenue. Mostly it's a "headache charge". They can't get away with flat out saying no, so they price it into the "only if you're really serious about wanting it" category and that limits the number of customers asking for it. In IPv4, where address scarcity is an issue, this makes sense. In IPv6, they should be laughed out of existence if they engage in such silliness. You are assuming that I don't talk to the people that deal with this stuff at the major providers. You are mistaken in that assumption. Owen
