Don't confuse someone's poor design with design goals.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Taht" <dave.t...@gmail.com> To: "Karl Auer" <ka...@biplane.com.au> Cc: "NANOG" <nanog@nanog.org> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2015 10:48:26 PM Subject: Re: Dual stack IPv6 for IPv4 depletion 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
