v6 & DSL / Cable modems [was: Private use of non-RFC1918 IP space (IPv6-MW)]

Fri Feb 6 00:11:13 UTC 2009

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, John Osmon wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 04:44:58PM -0500, Ricky Beam wrote:
> > [...] 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? 
> 
> Thank you.  Your ability to live with proxied/NATed Internet access has
> helped stave off the problems we're seeing now.  
> 
> The flip side shows up when Nintendo creates a cool new protocol for the Wii
> that requires Internet access.  You Wii won't be able to participate
> until you teach your proxy/NAT box about the new protocol.

What's the difference to firewalling without NAT? (Noone should connect 
their (home) network without at least inbound filtering) There I have to 
wait for the firewall box to support connection tracking for the new 
(broken) protocol.

If the end-users really get public addresses for their WII and game-PCs, 
do you really think they won't just open the box totally in their 
firewall/router and catch/create even more problems?

c'ya
sven

-- 
The lights are fading out, once more...