Using one-byte buffers, one hopes. :) -mel via cell
> On Jul 8, 2015, at 8:49 PM, Dave Taht <dave.t...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Karl Auer <ka...@biplane.com.au> wrote: >>> On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 21:03 -0500, Mike Hammett wrote: >>> I wasn't aware that residential users had (intentionally) multiple >>> layers of routing within the home. > > No, what they often have is multiple layers of nat. I was at a hotel > once that had plugged in 12 APs, serially, wan, to lan, to wan, to > lan, to wan ports... because the Internet is a series of tubes, right? > >> You, we, all of us have to stop using the present to limit the future. >> What IS should not be used to define what SHOULD BE. >> >> What people NOW HAVE in their homes should not be used to dictate to >> them what they CAN HAVE in their homes, which is what you do when you >> provide them only with non-globally-routable address space (IPv4 NAT), >> or too few subnets (IPv6 /56) to name just two examples. >> >> Multiple layers of routing might not be what is now in the home, but it >> doesn't take that much imagination to envision a future where there are >> hundreds, or even thousands of separate networks in the average home, >> some permanent, some ephemeral, and quite possibly all requiring >> end-to-end connectivity into the wider Internet. Taking into account >> just a few current technologies (virtual machines, car networks, >> personal networks, guest networks, entertainment systems) and >> fast-forwarding just a few years it's easy to imagine tens of subnets >> being needed - so it's not much of a leap to hundreds. And if we can >> already dimly see a future where hundreds might be needed, history tells >> us that there will probably be applications that need thousands. >> >> Unless of course we decide now that we don't WANT that. Then we should >> make it hard for it to happen by applying entirely arbitrary brakes like >> "/48 sounds too big to me, let's make it 1/256th of that." > > In my case I have completely abandoned much of the debris of ipv4 and > ipv6 - using self assigned /128s and a mesh routing protocol > everywhere, giving up on multicast as we knew it, and all I need is > one /64 to route my (almost entirely wireless) world. > > Somehow I doubt this will become a common option for others, but it > sure is easier than navigating the slew of standards, configuring > centralized services, and casting and configuring limited and highly > dynamic ipv6 subnets around. > > >> Regards, K. >> >> -- >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) >> http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer >> http://twitter.com/kauer389 >> >> GPG fingerprint: 3C41 82BE A9E7 99A1 B931 5AE7 7638 0147 2C3C 2AC4 >> Old fingerprint: EC67 61E2 C2F6 EB55 884B E129 072B 0AF0 72AA 9882 > > > > -- > Dave Täht > worldwide bufferbloat report: > http://www.dslreports.com/speedtest/results/bufferbloat > And: > What will it take to vastly improve wifi for everyone? > https://plus.google.com/u/0/explore/makewififast
