Re: Nat

2015-12-20 Thread 'Matt Palmer'
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:54:49PM -0500, Chuck Church wrote: > From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matt Palmer > >Depends on how many devices you have on it. Once you start filling your > >home with Internet of Unpatchable Security Holes devices, having everything > >on a si

Re: Nat

2015-12-20 Thread Jason Baugher
In the real world of service providers and customers, people don't "choose to be the authors". To choose, they would have to know the options. If I were to randomly poll 1000 of our residential customers to ask them about their L2/L3 networks, firewall policies, etc..., they'd have no idea what I w

RE: Nat

2015-12-20 Thread Keith Medcalf
You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. If people choose to be the authors of their own misfortunes, that is their choice. I know a good many folks who are not members of NANOG yet have multiple separate L2 and L3 networks to keep the "crap" isolated. > -Original Mes

RE: Nat

2015-12-20 Thread Chuck Church
-Original Message- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-boun...@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Matt Palmer Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 10:29 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Nat >Depends on how many devices you have on it. Once you start filling your home with Internet of Unpatchable Security Holes

Re: Nat

2015-12-20 Thread Mark Andrews
In message <00e801d13b96$873e1120$95ba3360$@gmail.com>, "Chuck Church" writes: > -Original Message- > From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 7:46 PM > To: Chuck Church > Cc: 'Matthew Petach' ; 'North American Network > Operators' Group' > Subject:

Re: Nat

2015-12-20 Thread Mike Hammett
We can't get people to use passwords judiciously (create them at all for WiFi, change them, use more than one, etc.) and now you want them to manage networks? - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Randy Fischer" To

Re: Nat

2015-12-20 Thread Randy Fischer
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Mike Hammett wrote: > Most people couldn't care less and just want the Internet on their device > to work. Well, if the best practice for CPE routers included as a matter of course the subnets "connected to internet", "local only (e.g. IoT)" and "guest network"

Re: Nat

2015-12-20 Thread Matt Palmer
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 09:23:04PM -0500, Chuck Church wrote: > I agree that a /48 or /56 being reserved for business > customers/sites is reasonable. But for residential use, I'm having a hard > time believing multi-subnet home networks are even remotely common outside > of networking folk

Re: Nat

2015-12-20 Thread Matt Palmer
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 08:11:53PM -0700, Keith Medcalf wrote: > > I agree that a /48 or /56 being reserved for business > > customers/sites is reasonable. But for residential use, I'm having a hard > > time believing multi-subnet home networks are even remotely common outside > > of networkin

Re: Nat

2015-12-20 Thread Mike Hammett
Most people couldn't care less and just want the Internet on their device to work. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Keith Medcalf" To: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 9:11:53 PM Subject: RE:

RE: Nat

2015-12-20 Thread Keith Medcalf
> I agree that a /48 or /56 being reserved for business > customers/sites is reasonable. But for residential use, I'm having a hard > time believing multi-subnet home networks are even remotely common outside > of networking folk such as the NANOG members. A lot of recent IPv4 > devices > s

RE: Nat

2015-12-20 Thread Chuck Church
-Original Message- From: Mark Andrews [mailto:ma...@isc.org] Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 7:46 PM To: Chuck Church Cc: 'Matthew Petach' ; 'North American Network Operators' Group' Subject: Re: Nat >I have a single CPE router and 3 /64's in use. One for each of the wireless SSID's

Re: Nat

2015-12-20 Thread Baldur Norddahl
On 20 December 2015 at 17:57, Mike Hammett wrote: > The idea that there's a possible need for more than 4 bits worth of > subnets in a home is simply ludicrous and we have people advocating 16 bits > worth of subnets. How does that compare to the entire IPv4 Internet? > Does those extra bits som

Re: Nat

2015-12-20 Thread Daniel Corbe
> On Dec 20, 2015, at 1:22 PM, Matthew Petach wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Daniel Corbe wrote: >>> On Dec 20, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: >>> >>> There is little that can be done about much of this now, but at least we >>> can label some of these past decisions as r

Re: Nat

2015-12-20 Thread Matthew Petach
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Daniel Corbe wrote: >> On Dec 20, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: >> >> There is little that can be done about much of this now, but at least we can >> label some of these past decisions as ridiculous and hopefully a lesson for >> next time. > > There isn

Re: Nat

2015-12-20 Thread Daniel Corbe
> On Dec 20, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > However, keeping back 64 bits for the host was a stupid move from the > beginning. We're reserving 64 bits for what's currently a 48 bit number. You > can use every single MAC address whereas IPS are lost to subnetting and other > such t

Re: Nat

2015-12-20 Thread Mike Hammett
There's nothing that can really be done about it now and I certainly wasn't able to participate when these things were decided. However, keeping back 64 bits for the host was a stupid move from the beginning. We're reserving 64 bits for what's currently a 48 bit number. You can use every singl